Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第十二章新约

§ 74. 文献

参看§ 14关于基督生平的文献，以及§ 20关于使徒时期的文献。

I. 《希腊文新约》(Greek Testament)的校勘版本：拉赫曼 (Lachmann)，1842–50年，2卷；蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)，第八版大型校勘本 (ed. octava critics major)，1869–72年，2卷，附C. R. 格雷戈里 (C. R. Gregory) 所撰《绪论》(Prolegomena)，第一部分，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1884年；特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)，1857–79年；韦斯科特与霍特 (Westcott and Hort)，1881年，另附《导论与附录》一卷，剑桥与纽约，修订版，1888年。

拉赫曼奠定了基础；蒂申多夫和特雷格尔斯大大扩充了校勘资料，并加以细致甄别；韦斯科特和霍特根据所能获得的最古老资料，恢复了最纯净的文本；他们在原则和结果上都基本一致，给我们提供的是古代大写字体抄本的文本，而非中世纪草写体抄本的文本。

与近来路德译本和钦定本的修订有关，还有两种双语版本值得特别提及。奥斯卡·冯·格布哈特 (Oskar von Gebhardt)：《希腊文与德文新约》(Novum Testamentum Graece et Germanice)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1881年，采用蒂申多夫最后定本的文本（下附特雷格尔斯及韦斯科特与霍特的异读），以及路德译本的修订译文。他的希腊文文本也单独出版，附有双语版所未收录的“校勘注释”("Adnotatio critica")。《希英对照新约：韦斯科特与霍特希腊文文本及英语修订本分列对页，附沙弗导言》(The Greek-English New Testament, containing Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text and the Revised English Version on opposite pages, with introduction by Schaff.)，纽约，哈珀兄弟出版社 (Harper & Brothers)，1882年；修订版，1888年。

以下各家所著的历史批判性《新约导论》，或《新约文学史》：胡格 (Hug)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、盖里克 (Guericke)、霍恩 (Horne)、戴维森 (Davidson)、特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)、格劳 (Grau)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、阿伯勒 (Aberle，罗马天主教)、布利克 (Bleek，曼戈尔德〔Mangold〕编第四版，1886年)、罗伊斯 (Reuss，第六版，1887年)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann，第二版，1886年)、魏斯 (Weiss，1886年)、萨蒙 (Salmon，第三版，1888年)。
蒂尔施 (Thiersch)：《重建新约诸书批判研究的历史立场》(Herstellung des historischen Standpunktes für die Kritik der neutestamentl. Schriften)。埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1845年。（反对鲍尔〔Baur〕及图宾根学派〔Tübingen School〕。）——爱德华·C. 米切尔 (Edward C. Mitchell)：《新约批判研究手册》(Critical Handbook to the New Test.，论真确性、正典等)。伦敦 (Lond.) 与安多弗 (Andover)，1880年；法译本，巴黎，1882年。——J. P. 兰格 (J. P. Lange)：《圣经知识纲要》(Grundriss der Bibelkunde)。海德堡 (Heidelberg)，1881年。——菲利普·沙弗 (Philip Schaff)：《希腊文新约与英语译本指南》(Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version.)。纽约 (N. Y.) 与伦敦 (Lond.)，1883年；第三版，修订本，1888年。——G. D. 拉德 (G. D. Ladd)：《圣经教义》(The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture,)，纽约 (N. York)，1883年，2卷。同书节本，1888年。
下文所引关于福音书和使徒书信的著作。

V. 关于新约正典，有以下各家的著作：基尔希霍费尔 (Kirchhofer)（《史料汇编》等，Quellensammlung，苏黎世〔Zürich〕，1844年；查特里斯〔Charteris〕增订英译本：《正典性》等，Canonicity，爱丁堡〔Edinb.〕，1881年）；克雷德纳 (Credner)（《正典史论》，Zur Gesch. des Kanon.，哈雷〔Halle〕，1847年；《新约正典史》，福尔克马尔〔Volkmar〕编，Geschichte des Neutest. Kanon, herausg. von Volkmar.，柏林，1860年）；戈森 (Gaussen)（英译本，伦敦，1862年；柯克〔Kirk〕译节本，波士顿，1862年）；特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)（《穆拉多利正典》，Canon Muratorianus，牛津，1867年）；萨姆·戴维森 (Sam. Davidson)（伦敦〔Lond.〕，1878年；第三版，1880年）；韦斯科特 (Westcott)（剑桥与伦敦，1855年；第六版，1889年）；罗伊斯 (Reuss)（《圣经正典史》，Histoire du canon des S. Écritures.，斯特拉斯堡〔Strasb.〕，第二版，1864年）；阿德·哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)（《穆拉多利残篇与使徒—大公著作集的形成》，Das muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung Apost.-katholischer Schriften，载布里格尔〔Brieger〕编《教会史杂志》〔Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte〕，1879年，第III卷，第358页及下页；参看第595页及下页）；F. 奥弗贝克 (F. Overbeck)（《正典史论》，Zur Geschichte des Kanons.，开姆尼茨〔Chemnitz〕，1880年）；雷维尔 (Réville)（法文，1881年）；特奥德·赞恩 (Theod. Zahn)（《新约正典史研究》，Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons，第I–III部分，1881–84年；以及《新约正典史》，Geschichte des Kanons d. N. T.，莱比锡〔Leipz.〕，1888年及后，3卷）。参看哈纳克：《约公元200年的新约》(Das N. T. um das Jahr. 200)，弗赖堡 (Freiburg)，1889年（反对赞恩），以及赞恩的答复，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1889年。

§ 75. 使徒文献的兴起

基督是人人都当诵读的生命之书。他的宗教不是像摩西律法那样外在的诫命字句，而是自由、使人得生命的灵；不是文学的产物，而是道德的创造；不是为学者设立的一套新神学或哲学体系，而是将神的生命传给人，以救赎整个世界。基督是有位格的上帝之道，是永恒的逻各斯 (Logos)，成为肉身，作为真正的舍金纳 (Shekinah) 住在地上，在遮蔽之中显出父独生子的荣光，充充满满地有恩典有真理。他开口说话；他口中所出的一切话，从前是、如今仍是灵，是生命。人心所渴求的，不是一位博学、写信、著书的基督，而是一位行神迹、背十架、成就赎罪的救赎主，已经复活，在天上登基，统治世界；同时也为人和天使提供一个永无穷尽的默想、讲论和赞美的主题。

同样，主所拣选的使徒，除保罗一人以外，没有一个出自学者的行列；他没有训练他们从事著述，在他整个地上生活中，也未曾明白吩咐过他们一句，要他们以这种方式劳作。这些加利利的朴实渔夫，不通晓世上的智慧，却充满真理的圣灵和来世的能力；他们奉差遣，靠着已经得荣耀之主的能力，奉他的名，将救恩的佳音传给万民。这位主坐在全能父上帝的右边，并且应许与他们同在，直到世界的末了。

因此，福音最初的传播、教会最初的建立，是凭着使徒及其门徒亲身的口头教导和劝勉，即他们的“宣讲”“见证”“话语”“传承”；事实上，直到今日，活的言语仍是推广基督教不可缺少的手段，至少也是主要手段。《新约》几乎所有的书卷都写于公元50至70年间，距基督复活和教会建立至少已有二十年；约翰的福音书和书信则写得更晚。

随着使徒工作范围的扩展，领域变得过于广大，非他们亲身所能照料，因而需要书信往来。基督教的根本利益和后世的需要，要求有完全可靠的见证人，忠实记录基督的生平和教训。因为在会犯错误的人中间，口头传承容易发生种种偶然的变动，离源头越远，其确定性和可信性便越低，直到最后，再也无法将它与其上积累的增添和讹误清楚地区别开来。此外，那些在使徒在世时就已抬头的犹太化和异教化的谬误传播者，也极有可能蓄意歪曲基督教的历史和教义。因此，对耶稣及其门徒的言行作出真确的文字记录，实在绝不可少；这固然不是为了创立教会，而是为了保守教会不受败坏，并为她提供纯正的信仰与纪律准则。

于是便有了使徒和使徒同人的二十七卷著作，都是在圣灵特殊的感动与引导下写成的。这些著作为我们真实地描绘了原始基督教的历史、信仰和实践，“于教训、督责、使人归正、教导人学义都是有益的。”¹

将这些著作汇集成正典，使之既有别于伪经或伪托使徒的作品，又有别于虽属正统却仅出于人的作品，乃是早期教会的工作；教会进行这项工作时，同样受到上帝之灵和健全的真理意识的引导。直到第四世纪末，这项工作才告完成，得到所有人的认可；在此之前，有七卷新约书（优西比乌〔Eusebius〕所谓的“有争议之书”〔Antilegomena〕），即《彼得后书》《约翰二书》《约翰三书》、未署名的《希伯来书》、《雅各书》《犹大书》，以及在某种意义上也包括《约翰启示录》，其作者身份或价值仍受到一些人的怀疑。不过，汇集工作无疑在第一世纪就已仿照旧约正典的模式开始了；²而其中主要的书卷，即诸福音书、《使徒行传》、保罗的十三封书信、《彼得前书》和《约翰一书》，在第二世纪中叶以后便已作为一个整体普遍使用，并仿照犹太会堂的方式，在公共敬拜中整卷或分段诵读，以造就会众。

对于新教基督徒而言，单凭传统的外在见证，并不能判定一卷书是否源于使徒、是否具有正典性质；这必须得到该书本身内在见证的证实。然而，这种见证并不缺少；这十八个世纪以来，基督教世界一致承认，我们称为《新约》的这一小卷书，在属灵能力及对人心智与心灵的影响上，是一本绝无仅有的书，其意趣和价值胜过古今一切经典的总和。上帝若曾向人说话，并且如今仍向人说话，那就是在这本书中。

§ 76. 新约的特质

在这些受默示的著作中，我们所拥有的，虽不等同于基督及其使徒亲身同在、口授教训，却是可靠的替代。写下的话语与口述的话语，仅在形式上有所不同；其实质相同，因此对我们而言，也具有与最初听见这些话的人所经历的同样的权威和使人得生命的能力。这些书卷表面上虽然是由特殊而偶然的契机促成，起初也是写给特定读者群，并适应特殊处境的，然而，它们既以活泼的形式呈现永恒不变的真理，就适用于一切境遇和状况。它们是为当时而写的篇章，也是为万世而写的篇章；它们本为第一世纪的犹太人和希腊人而写，却同样引起第十九世纪英国人和美国人的关切。直到今日，它们不仅是原始基督教唯一可靠而纯净的源泉，也是基督徒信仰与实践无误的准则。教会从这源泉中饮取生命之水，已有五十多代，并且还要继续饮用，直到世界的末了。在这准则中，教会拥有纠正她一切过失的永久依据，以及抵御一切谬误的保障。神学体系兴起又消逝，从这宝库中或多或少地汲取材料，增进我们对真理的认识；然而，它们永不能与那永远长存、无误的上帝之道相提并论。

“我们渺小的体系各有其时，

盛行一时，便归消逝；

它们不过是你破碎的光芒，

上帝啊，你却远超其上。”

《新约》在其文体本身就显出它普及万民的旨趣；仅此一点，便足以使它有别于前后各时代的一切文学作品。它有希腊的躯体、希伯来的灵魂，以及统御两者的基督教精神。它所用的是希腊化语体 (Hellenistic idiom)，即基督时代散居各地的犹太人所说的马其顿希腊语；它以一种经过更新的基督教形式，将古代世界两大彼此对立的民族和宗教结合起来。异教世界最优美的语言与希伯来人庄严古老的语言，在这里融为一体，受了基督教精神的洗礼，成为银网子，衬托福音永恒真理的金苹果。圣经的文体，总的说来，格外适合各阶层和各种文化程度的人；它既为儿童的宗教需要提供简单的滋养，也为最深邃的思想家提供取之不尽的研究材料。圣经不只是一本通俗读物，更是一本属于万国、适用于人类一切社会、阶层和境遇的书。它不只是一本书，更是一种统御基督教世界的制度。

《新约》以其特有的方式，呈现出与基督位格相同的神人联合。在这个意义上，也可以说“道成了肉身，住在我们中间”。基督在身体、魂与灵各方面都与我们相同，只是没有罪；同样，那“为他作见证”的圣经，在内容与形式上，在其产生、编集、保存和流传的方式上，也全然具有人性（却没有教义和伦理上的错误）；然而，同时它在思想与言语、起源、生命力、能力和功效上，又全然具有神性。在文字这属人的奴仆形象之下，信心的眼睛辨认出“父独生子的荣光，充充满满地有恩典有真理”。

使徒著作分为三类：历史性的、教导性的和预言性的。福音书与《使徒行传》属于第一类；书信属于第二类；《启示录》属于第三类。它们彼此的关系，犹如重生、成圣与得荣耀，又如根基、房屋与穹顶。耶稣基督是一切的开端、中心和终结。在福音书中，他以人的形象行走于地上，成就救赎的工作。在《使徒行传》和书信中，他建立教会，并借着他的灵充满、引导教会。最后，在《启示录》的异象中，他在荣耀里再来，与他的新妇——众圣徒的教会——在新地的上帝之城中永远作王。

这一顺序与基督教启示的自然进程相合，也为教会普遍采用，惟书信的编排略有差异。《新约》并非以一部编定成书的形式赐下；各卷书乃是在被认可和使用的过程中，依照内在契合的规律，逐渐汇集而成。大多数古代抄本、译本和书目，都依照以下次序排列各卷：福音书、《使徒行传》、大公书信、保罗书信、《启示录》。³ 有些则将保罗书信放在大公书信之前。⁴ 我们的英文圣经沿用拉丁文《武加大译本》(Vulgate) 的次序。⁵

§ 77. 福音书研究文献

I. 福音书合参

此类著作始于他提安 (Tatian) 公元170年的《四福音合参》(Diatessaron)。早期著作的书目，见法布里修斯 (Fabricius)《希腊文献志》(Bibl. Gr.)，III. 212；哈泽 (Hase)《耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu)，第22–31页（第5版）；罗宾逊 (Robinson)《合参》(Harmony)，第v、vi页；达林 (Darling)《书目百科全书》(Cyclopaedia Bibliog.)，I. 主题，第761–767栏；以及麦克林托克与斯特朗 (McClintock and Strong)《百科全书》(Cyclop.)，IV. 81。以下列出从格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach) 到拉什布鲁克 (Rushbrooke) 的主要著作。

格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach)：《对观合参》(Synopsis)，哈雷，1774年等版，1822年；纽科姆 (Newcome)：都柏林，1778年，后多次再版；另有安多弗，1834年版；Jos. 普里斯特利 (Jos. Priestley)：希腊文版，伦敦，1778年；英文版，1780年；Jos. 怀特 (Jos. White)：《四福音合参》(Diatessaron)，牛津，1799、1803年；德·韦特与吕克 (De Wette and Lücke)：1818、1842年；勒迪格尔 (Rödiger)：1829、1839年；格雷斯韦尔 (Greswell)：《福音书合参》(Harmonia Evangelica)，1830年，第5版，牛津，1856年；《合参论集》等 (Dissertations upon an Harmony, etc.)，第2版，牛津，1837年，4卷；麦克布赖德 (Macbride)：《四福音合参》(Diatessaron)，牛津，1837年；维泽勒 (Wieseler)：《年代对观合参》(Chronolog. Synopse)，汉堡，1843年；克拉夫特 (Krafft，卒于1845年)：《四福音书的年代与合参》(Chronologie u. Harmonie der 4 Evang.)，埃尔朗根，1848年，由布尔格 (Burger) 编辑；蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)：《福音书对观合参》(Synopsis Evang.)，莱比锡，1851、1854年；第4版，1878年；Rud. 安格尔 (Rud. Anger)：莱比锡，1852年；斯特劳德 (Stroud)：兼有对观合参与四福音合编，伦敦，1853年；E. 罗宾逊 (E. Robinson)：《依哈恩文本编成的希腊文四福音合参》(A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the text of Hahn)，波士顿，1845、1851年；修订版，1862年；英文版，1846年；詹姆斯·斯特朗 (James Strong)：英文版，纽约，1852年；希腊文版，1854年；R. 明普里斯 (R. Mimpriss)：伦敦，1855年；道格拉斯 (Douglas)：1859年；塞温 (Sevin)：威斯巴登，1866年；Fr. 加德纳 (Fr. Gardiner)：《依蒂申多夫文本编成的希腊文四福音合参，附公认文本对校等》(A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the text of Tischendorf, with a Collation of the Textus Receptus, etc.)，安多弗，1876年；另有他的《四福音合参：以福音书原话叙述我主生平》(Diatessaron, The Life of our Lord in the Words of the Gospels)，安多弗，1871年；J. R. 吉尔摩与莱曼·阿博特 (J. R. Gilmore and Lyman Abbott)：《福音历史：按年代编排的我主生平完整叙事》(The Gospel History: being a Complete Chronological Narrative of the Life of our Lord)，纽约，1881年；W. G. 拉什布鲁克 (W. G. Rushbrooke)：《对观汇编：对观福音书共同材料的展示》(Synopticon: an Exposition of the Common Matter in the Synoptic Gospels)，剑桥，1880–81年，2部分；采用蒂申多夫的希腊文文本，并据韦斯科特与霍特 (Westcott and Hort) 校订。最后这部著作独具一格，印制极为精美。它以不同字体和颜色标明各篇叙事的差异：各福音书作者共有的材料用红字；每两位作者共有的材料用黑色疏排字体或大写字母；各人独有的材料则用普通黑字。这为详细比较和批判分析提供了最佳基础。

II. 批判性讨论

纳撒尼尔·拉德纳 (Nathaniel Lardner，1684–1768年，学识渊博的不从国教派牧师)：《福音历史的可信性》(The Credibility of the Gospel History)。初版为八开本17卷，伦敦，1727–1757年；又收入A. 基皮斯 (A. Kippis) 所编的《全集》(Works)，伦敦，1788年（共11卷），第I–V卷。论学问之诚实与坚实，无出其右，至今仍有价值。

J. G. 艾希霍恩 (J. G. Eichhorn，卒于1827年)：《圣经文献总汇》(Allgem. Bibliothek der Bibl. Liter.)，第V卷（1794年），第759页及后；《新约导论》(Einleitung in das N. Testament.)，1804年，第I卷，第2版，1820年。他在此提出了“原始福音书”(Urevangelium) 的新见解。

赫伯特·马什 (Herbert Marsh，彼得伯勒主教，卒于1839年)：《〈前三部正典福音书的起源与构成论〉所提假说的阐释》(An Illustration of the Hypothesis proposed in the Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels)。剑桥，1803年。另有他所译J. D. 米夏埃利斯 (J. D. Michaelis) 的《新约导论，附前三部福音书的起源与构成论》(Introduction to the New Test., with a Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Three First Gospels)。伦敦，1802年。这是对艾希霍恩假说的修正。

Fr. 施莱尔马赫 (Fr. Schleiermacher)：《路加著作的批判性研究》(Kritischer Versuch über die Schriften des Lucas)。柏林，1817年（《全集》Werke，I. 2，第1–220页）；瑟尔沃尔 (Thirlwall) 英译本，伦敦，1825年。参较他的《新约导论》(Einleitung in das N. Testament.，遗著)。

J. C. L. 吉泽勒 (J. C. L. Gieseler)：《成文福音书的起源及其最早期遭际之历史批判研究》(Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien)。莱比锡，1818年。

安德鲁斯·诺顿 (Andrews Norton，保守的一位论者，1853年卒于剑桥)：《福音书真实性的证据》(The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels)。波士顿，1837年；第2版，马萨诸塞州剑桥，1846–1848年，3卷。单卷节本，波士顿（美国一位论协会，Am. Unitar. Assoc.），1867、1875年。同一作者另著：《福音书真实性的内证》(Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels，遗著)。波士顿，1855年。特别针对施特劳斯 (Strauss)。

Fr. 布利克 (Fr. Bleek，卒于1859年)：《福音书批判论集》(Beiträge zur Evangelien-Kritik)。柏林，1846年。

F. Chr. 鲍尔 (F. Chr. Baur，卒于1860年)：《正典福音书的批判研究》(Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien)。1847年。参较他的《教会史》(Church History) 第1卷（德文版，第22页及后、第148页及后）。

以撒·达·科斯塔 (Isaac Da Costa)：《四位见证人：依新原则编成的福音书合参》(The Four Witnesses: being a Harmony of the Gospels on a New Principle)。大卫·斯科特 (David Scott) 由荷兰文译出，1851年；纽约版，1855年。反驳施特劳斯。

Ad. 希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld，图宾根学派)：《福音书的起源及其历史意义》(Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtl. Bedeutung)。莱比锡，1854年。另有他的《导论》(Einleitung)，1875年。

韦斯科特 (Westcott) 法政牧师：《福音书研究导论》(Introduction to the Study of the Gospels)。伦敦及波士顿，1860年；第7版，伦敦，1888年。极为有用。

Const. 蒂申多夫 (Const. Tischendorf，卒于1874年)：《我们的福音书写于何时？》(Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst?)。莱比锡，第4版，1866年（W. L. 盖奇〔W. L. Gage〕英译本，波士顿，1868年）。

H. Jul. 霍尔茨曼 (H. Jul. Holtzmann)：《对观福音书：其起源与历史特征》(Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtl. Charakter)。莱比锡，1863年。另见他在申克尔 (Schenkel)《圣经辞典》(Bibel-Lex.)，II. 207中所撰的“福音书”(Evangelien) 条目，以及他在《新教神学年鉴》(Jahrbücher für Protest. Theol.)，1878年，第145页及后、第533页及后所发表的两篇讨论对观福音书问题的文章；尤其应参看他的《新约导论》(Einleitung in das N. T.)，第2版，1886年。

C. 魏茨泽克 (C. Weizsäcker，鲍尔博士的继任者，但较不激进)：《福音历史及其史料研究》等 (Untersuchungen über die evang. Gesch., ihre Quellen, etc.)。哥达，1864年。

古斯塔夫·德希塔尔 (Gustave d’Eichthal)：《福音书》(Les Évangiles)。巴黎，1863年，2卷。

L. A. 萨巴蒂耶 (L. A. Sabatier)：《耶稣生平史料论》(Essai sur les sources de la vie de Jésus)。巴黎，1866年。

安德鲁·朱克斯 (Andrew Jukes)：《四福音书的特征差异》(The Characteristic Differences of the Four Gospels)。伦敦，1867年。

爱德华·A. 汤姆森 (Edward A. Thomson)：《四位福音书作者及其福音书各自的特征》(The Four Evangelists; with the Distinctive Characteristics of their Gospels)。爱丁堡，1868年。

C. A. 罗 (C. A. Row)：《通过考察福音书内容检验其历史性质》(The Historical Character of the Gospels Tested by an Examination of their Contents)。1865–67年。《福音书作者笔下的耶稣》(The Jesus of the Evangelists)。伦敦，1868年。

卡尔·维泽勒 (Karl Wieseler)：《正确评价福音书与福音历史论集》(Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte)。哥达，1869年。

《超自然宗教》(Supernatural Religion，匿名)。伦敦，1873年，第7版，1879年，第I卷，第II部分，第212页及后，以及第III卷。参较莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教自1875年起在《当代评论》(Contemporary Review) 上以系列文章对该书所作的细致评论与反驳。

P. 戈代 (P. Godet)：《四福音书的起源》(The Origin of the Four Gospels)，收入他的《新约研究》(Studies on the New Test.)，1873年。W. H. 利特尔顿 (W. H. Lyttelton) 英译本，伦敦，1876年。另见他的《路加福音注释》(Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke) 的导论及附录；据法文第2版译成的英译本，爱丁堡，1875年。

W. 桑迪 (W. Sanday)：《第二世纪的福音书》(The Gospels in the Second Century)。伦敦，1876年。

伯恩哈德·魏斯 (Bernhard Weiss，柏林教授)：《马可福音及其对观平行经文》(Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen)。柏林，1872年。《马太福音及其路加平行经文释义》(Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklärt)。哈雷，1876年。这是两部极为详尽的批判性著作。另参较他在《新教神学年鉴》(Jahrbücher for Protest. Theologie)，1878年对霍尔茨曼的答复，以及他的《新约导论》(Einleitung in’s N. T.)，1886年。

D. S. 格雷戈里 (D. S. Gregory)：《为何有四福音？或，赐给全世界的福音书》(Why Four Gospels? or, the Gospels for all the World)。纽约，1877年。

E. 勒南 (E. Renan)：《福音书与第二代基督徒》(Les évangiles et la seconde génération Chrétienne)。巴黎，1877年。

Geo. P. 费舍尔 (Geo. P. Fisher，纽黑文教授)：《基督教的起源》(The Beginnings of Christianity)。纽约，1877年，第VIII–XII章。另有1881年《普林斯顿评论》(Princeton Review) 中数篇论福音书的文章。

Wm. 汤姆森 (Wm. Thomson，约克大主教)：《福音书》(The Gospels)，载《议长版新约注释》(Speaker’s Com. on the New Test.) 总导论，第I卷，第xiii–lxxv页。伦敦及纽约，1878年。

埃德温·A. 阿博特 (Edwin A. Abbott，伦敦市学校校长)：“福音书”(Gospels)，载《不列颠百科全书》(Encyclopaedia Britannia) 第9版，第X卷，第789–843页。爱丁堡及纽约，1879年。

Fred. 海德科珀 (Fred. Huidekoper，宾夕法尼亚州米德维尔一位论神学院)：《历史对福音书真实性的间接见证》(Indirect Testimony of History to the Genuineness of the Gospels)。纽约，第2版，1879年。

约翰·肯尼迪 (John Kennedy，神学博士)：《四福音书：其年代与作者——从第四世纪追溯至第一世纪》(The Four Gospels: their Age and Authorship. Traced from the Fourth Century into the First)。伦敦；美国版附埃德温·W. 赖斯 (Edwin W. Rice) 所写导言。费城，1880年（美国主日学联合会，Am. Sunday School Union）。

J. H. 斯霍尔滕 (J. H. Scholten)：《保罗派的福音》(Das Paulinische Evangelium)。E. B. 雷德彭宁 (E. B. Redepenning) 由荷兰文译出。埃尔伯费尔德，1881年。

C. 霍尔斯滕 (C. Holsten)：《三种原始而尚未成文的福音》(Die drei ursprünglichen, noch ungeschriebenen Evangelien)。莱比锡，1883年（79页）。这是对鲍尔的倾向假说的修正。霍尔斯滕假定最初口传的福音有三种形式：保罗派的、彼得派的和犹太主义的。

诺顿、蒂申多夫、维泽勒、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、达·科斯塔、韦斯科特、莱特福特、桑迪、肯尼迪、汤姆森、戈代、以斯拉·阿博特 (Ezra Abbot) 和费舍尔，持保守而有建设性的立场，却仍运用批判方法；鲍尔、希尔根费尔德、霍尔茨曼、凯姆 (Keim)、勒南、斯霍尔滕、戴维森 (Davidson) 以及《超自然宗教》的作者，立场激进，却能激发思考，并从反面有所助益，尤其是鲍尔、赖姆 (Reim) 和勒南。布利克、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、迈耶 (Meyer) 和魏斯持独立的中间立场，但除罗伊斯尚有犹疑以外，他们都维护《约翰福音》的真实性。

III. 注释书

古代著作：俄利根 (Origen)：《马太福音、路加福音等注释》(in Math., Luc., etc.，残篇)；金口约翰 (Chrysostom)：《马太福音讲道集》(Hom. in Matth.)，Fr. 菲尔德 (Fr. Field) 编，1839年；哲罗姆 (Jerome)：《马太福音注释》(in Matth.)、《路加福音注释》(in Luc.)；奥古斯丁 (Augustine)：《福音书问题二卷》(Quaestionum Evangeliorum libri II.)；狄奥菲拉克特 (Theophylact)：《四福音书注释》(Comment, in 4 Evang.)，希腊文及拉丁文；欧提米乌斯·齐加贝努斯 (Euthymius Zigabenus)：《四福音书注释》(Com. in 4 Evang.)，希腊文及拉丁文；托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas)：《福音书金链集注》(Catena aurea in Evan .；英文版由普西、基布尔与纽曼〔Pusey, Keble, and Newman〕编订，牛津，1841–45年，4卷)。
宗教改革以来的著作：加尔文 (Calvin)：《福音书合参》(Harmonia) 及《约翰福音注释》(Ev. Joa.)，1553年；英文版，爱丁堡，1846年，3卷；马尔多纳图斯 (Maldonatus，罗马天主教徒)：《四福音书注释》(Com. in quatuor Evang.)，1615年；帕斯基耶·凯内尔 (Pasquier Quesnel，詹森派)：《四福音书》(The Four Gospels)，法文及英文，有数版；约翰·莱特福特 (John Lightfoot)：《四福音书的希伯来文与塔木德研究》(Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas) 及《四福音书彼此之间并与旧约的合参》(Harmonia quatuor Evangelistarum tum inter se, tum cum Veteri Testamento)，收入其《全集》(Opera)，伦敦，1684年；另有莱比锡，1675年版；鹿特丹，1686年版；伦敦，1825年版；J. 麦克奈特 (J. Macknight)：《四福音书合参，附意译与注释》(Harm. of the Four Gospels, with Paraphrase and Notes)，伦敦，1756年；第5版，1819年，2卷；乔治·坎贝尔 (George Campbell，卒于1796年)：《四福音书，附论述与注释》(The Four Gospels, with Dissertations and Notes)，阿伯丁，1814年，4卷；安多弗，1837年，2卷。
十九世纪的著作：奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen，卒于1839年；第3版，1837年及后，由埃布拉德等人修订并完成；英译本，爱丁堡及纽约)；德·韦特 (De Wette，卒于1849年；《新约释经手册》〔Exeget. Handbuch zum N. T.〕，1837年；第5版，由布吕克纳〔Brückner〕等人编订，1863年及后)；布利克 (Bleek，卒于1859年；《前三福音书对观释义》〔Synopt. Erklärung der 3 ersten Evang.〕，1862年，2卷)；迈耶 (Meyer，卒于1874年；第6版，1876–80年，《马太福音》由迈耶撰写，《马可福音》《路加福音》和《约翰福音》由魏斯〔Weiss〕修订)；兰格 (Lange，美国增订版，纽约及爱丁堡，1864年及后，3卷)；阿尔福德 (Alford，卒于1871年；第6版，1868年；新版，1877年)；沃兹沃思 (Wordsworth，第5版，1866年)；Jos. A. 亚历山大 (Jos. A. Alexander，卒于1859年；《马可福音与马太福音》〔Mark and Matthew〕，后者未完成)；麦克莱伦 (McClellan，《四福音书，附年代与分析合参》〔The Four Gospels, with the Chronological and Analytical Harmony.〕，伦敦，1875年)；凯尔 (Keil，《马太福音、马可福音、路加福音与约翰福音》〔Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John〕，1877–1881年)；莫里森 (Morison，《马太福音与马可福音》〔Matthew and Mark〕，后者第3版，1882年)；戈代 (Godet，《路加福音与约翰福音》〔Luke and John〕，法文及英文)；施特拉克与策克勒 (Strack and Zöckler，1888年)。供英语读者使用的有：《议长注释》(Speaker’s Com.)、埃利科特《注释》(Ellicott’s Com.)、沙弗《修订本注释》(Schaff’s Revision Com.)，1882年，等等。

参看迈耶《马太福音》(Matthew) 英译本所列的福音书注释书目（爱丁堡，1877年，第xxiv–xliii页）。

§ 78. 四福音书

福音书的一般性质与宗旨

基督教是喜乐的宗教，将天上的喜乐与平安带到地上。新约以福音开篇，也就是以一切历史中至高历史的真实记载开篇，宣告借着耶稣基督的生、死与复活而来的救恩佳音。⁶ 四部正典福音书只是同一主题的不同变奏，是同一福音的四重呈现，由同一位圣灵赋予生命。⁷ 它们不是完整的传记，⁸ 而只是回忆录，或是从基督的生平与工作中，选取那些给各位福音书作者留下深刻印象、最适合其写作目的及读者群体的特征。⁹ 它们不是只摄下某一姿态之瞬间影像的照片，而是经过反复对坐写生而绘成的生动画卷，再现基督位格的种种神情与面貌。

其文体自然、朴实、直率而客观。这种不事雕琢、天真质朴的风格，与旧约中最早的历史记载相似，对于各阶层、各种文化程度的人，都具有独特而持久的魅力。作者以高尚的谦逊与忘我，抑下个人的见解与情感，在他们所描写的伟大主题面前，怀着敬拜的心默然退后，竭力使这一主题以其自身全部的力量呈现出来，不加任何外在的助饰。

第一和第四部福音书出自使徒兼亲眼见证人马太与约翰；第二和第三部则在彼得与保罗的影响下，由他们的门徒马可与路加写成，因而也间接具有使徒的渊源与正典的权威。因此，《马可福音》常被称为彼得的福音，《路加福音》则被称为保罗的福音。

福音书作者共同的实际宗旨，是引导读者对拿撒勒人耶稣产生使人得救的信心，相信他就是所应许的弥赛亚、世界的救赎主。¹⁰

共同的来源

福音书共同的来源，在于其中两位作者与基督亲自的交往，以及使徒和其他亲眼见证人的口述传统。倘若耶稣不曾亲自坐在那里让他们描绘，朴素的加利利渔夫便不可能画出这样一幅耶稣的肖像。要凭空创造出一位耶稣，必须有比耶稣更伟大的人。他们并没有创造这神圣的原型，而是忠实地保存并再现了他。

福音故事在公开宣讲与私人聚会中不断复述，逐渐形成固定不变的形式；最初的门徒敬重他们神圣夫子的每一句话，更使这一过程容易发生。由此前三部福音书，即对观福音书，才有那样惊人的一致，它们在内容与形式上，都只是同一主题的不同变奏。路加据他自己的陈述，除了口述传统以外，还采用了记载耶稣部分生平的书面文献；这些文献无疑很早就已出现在最初的门徒中间。马可是彼得的亲信，他的福音书忠实地重现了这位使徒所宣讲、并以其他方式传述的福音；也许还采用了彼得可能不时以希伯来文写下的记录，当时那些事件本身留给他的印象尚很鲜明。

各自的特色

然而，尽管内容与文体如此相似，各部福音书，尤其是第四部，仍各有特色，与作者个人的性格、特殊的写作目的以及读者的处境相应。各位福音书作者从不同的方面，并从耶稣与人类的不同关系，呈现他生命与位格的无限丰盛，彼此互为补充。教会富有象征意味的诗意，将它们比作乐园的四道河流，又比作代表受造界的四个基路伯形象，将人归于马太，狮子归于马可，牛归于路加，鹰归于约翰。

这些叙事中表面上的矛盾，若仔细考察，在一切要点上都能得到充分的解释，反而足以证明作者的诚实、公正与可信。同时，相似与差异如此显著地交织在一起，促使人细心观察、逐一比较，从而使基督生平的事件，比单一叙事所能达到的，更鲜明、更深刻地铭刻在读者的心思与心灵中。近年来，人们为阐明各福音书比较之下的特色、协调其间的差异，付出了极大的劳力，这并非徒劳，反而使人更加确信它们各自独立的价值与相互补足的完备。

马太为犹太人写作，马可为罗马人，路加为希腊人，约翰为信仰成熟的基督徒；但它们全都适用于各时代、各民族的基督徒。¹¹ 第一部福音书将拿撒勒人耶稣呈现为弥赛亚和天国的立法者，要求我们顺服；第二部将他呈现为大有能力的征服者与行神迹者，使我们惊叹；第三部将他呈现为体恤人类的朋友与救主，使我们信靠；第四部将他呈现为上帝永恒的儿子，为拯救我们而成为肉身，要求我们敬爱与敬拜，使我们因信他而得永生。那筹划这四重福音、统摄全局的心意，按照各位执笔者的才干、爱好与所能发挥作用的领域使用他们，无须他们正式相约；这就是那位主的灵，他既是人子，也是上帝的儿子，是我们众人的救主。

成书时间

关于成书时间，外部见证与内部证据都指向：对观福音书写于第一世纪的第七个十年，《约翰福音》写于第九个十年；现代批判学派的种种推测，未能推翻这些见证与证据。

对观福音书肯定写于公元70年以前；因为它们将耶路撒冷的毁灭描述为虽已临近、却仍属未来的事件，并将其与我主荣耀的显现直接相连。当时人们认为，主的显现可能发生在当时尚存的一代人之内，尽管任何地方都没有确定具体日期，主自己也宣告，连他也不知道。倘若福音书作者是在那场可怕的灾难以后写作，自然会有所提及，或将我主关于末世的讲论（《马太福音》24章；《马可福音》13章；《路加福音》21章）加以编排，使读者能清楚区分对耶路撒冷的审判，以及以前者为预表的世界最终审判。¹²

另一方面，在复活以后，必定已经过了相当多的年日。此前已有若干人尝试撰写福音历史，却不尽完善（《路加福音》1:1），以及“直到今日”这样的措辞（《马太福音》27:8；28:15），都表明了这一点。

然而，要确定成书的具体年份，实在不可能。各书信没有提到对观福音书，并不能确证其作者是在雅各、彼得与保罗去世之后才写作；因为《使徒行传》对保罗的书信同样保持沉默，各书信也没有提到《使徒行传》。使徒们并不引用彼此的著作，唯一的例外是彼得提及保罗的书信。在繁多的劳碌中，福音书作者可能用了数年预备自己的著作，直到形成现今的样貌。即使在今日，撰写一部基督传，也很可能需要多年最深入的研究。

希伯来文《马太福音》很可能最先写成；其次是《马可福音》；希腊文《马太福音》与《路加福音》的成书时间应当相距不远。《使徒行传》在叙述保罗于罗马被囚（61–63年）时突然结束，倘若该书写于这位使徒去世之前，那么被称为“前书”（《使徒行传》1:1）的第三部福音书，就必定写于公元65年或64年以前，也许写于凯撒利亚 (Caesarea)；保罗在58至60年间被囚于那里时，路加有搜集材料的最佳机会；不过，该书可能又过了几年才问世。较晚的对观福音书作者是否知道并采用了较早的著作，将在下一节讨论。

根据古代一致的见证，且有内部证据加以印证，约翰的福音书最后写成，时在耶路撒冷陷落以及基督徒与犹太人最终分离之后。他显然以对观福音书已经存在为前提（虽然他从未提及它们），并省略了关于末世的讲论，以及许多其他讲论与神迹，甚至省略了圣礼的设立，因为这些事在全教会中已为人充分知晓。然而，在这里也无法确定成书的年份。约翰将他的福音存于心中与记忆中多年，到晚年才在公元80至100年间逐渐写定；因为他活到了第一世纪末，也许还看见了第二世纪的曙光。

可信性

福音书给每一位心无成见的读者以绝对诚实的印象。它们讲述故事，不加修辞的润饰，没有任何惊奇或赞叹的感叹，也不附加注解与评论。它们坦率地记载门徒的软弱与过失，包括作者自己在内；记载夫子因他们属肉体的误解与缺乏信心而加以责备；记载他们在最艰难的时刻怯懦逃散，在十字架事件之后全然绝望，以及约翰与雅各充满野心的请求、彼得的不认主、犹大的背叛。它们甚至极其详尽地叙述十二使徒之首所犯的大罪，尤其是《马可福音》，其细节无疑来自彼得亲口的陈述。它们毫不隐瞒，毫不辩解，毫不夸大。作者丝毫不顾自己的名声，甚至隐去自己的姓名；他们唯一的目的，就是讲述耶稣的故事，而这故事本身便以不可抗拒的力量与魅力，进入每一位热爱真理的读者心中。细枝末节上的差异本身，反而增进人的信任，并排除了串通的嫌疑；因为在法律证据中，一项公认的原则是：证人证词在细节上的差异，证实了它们在实质上的一致。古代没有任何一部历史著作，像这些福音书一样，在其表面就带着如此真实可信的印记。

许多伪经福音书也从反面证实了正典福音书的可信性；它们远为低劣而幼稚，证明人的想象力，无论属于正统还是异端，都全然无力创造出历史上的拿撒勒人耶稣这样的人物。

使徒以后时代的作者，无人能够写出正典福音书；即使是使徒自己，若没有基督之灵的默示，也不能写出这些书来。

附注

福音书的象征。这属于基督教诗歌史与艺术史，也属于释经史，可以在此略加论述。它表明，教父及整个中世纪对各卷福音书独特性的认识仍很有限。

福音书作者的象征性标志，源于以西结所见四基路伯的异象；它们代表受造界，承载上帝的宝座（结1:15及下文；10:1及下文；11:22）；也源于《启示录》中的四“活物”（ζῶα^*，不是θηρία^*，即“兽”；英文译本 E. V. 将二者混淆）（启4:6–9；5:6、8、11、14；6:1、3、5、6、7；7:11；14:3；15:7；19:4）。

（1.）神学上的运用。先知被掳期间在迦巴鲁河 (Chebar) 岸边所见的基路伯形象，象征着动物受造界所反映的上帝威严与力量的属性；亚述 (Assyrian) 古迹上的有翼公牛、狮子及鹰首人身像，也具有类似的意义。然而，早在第二世纪，基路伯就被解释为预示四福音书的预表，只是在具体配属上有所不同。

爱任纽 (Irenaeus，约170年) 认为基路伯的面貌（人、狮、牛、鹰）是“上帝之子生平与工作的形象”，将人配给马太，牛配给路加，却将鹰配给马可，狮配给约翰（《驳异端》 Adv. Haer., III. 11, 8，Stieren编，I. 469及下页）。后来，马可与约翰的标志才得到恰当的互换。哲罗姆 (Jerome，卒于419年) 在其《以西结书注释》及其他段落中便是如此。我引录其《马太福音注释》 (Comment. in Ev. Matthaei) 的序言 (Prologus) 如下（《全集》 Opera, 第VII卷，第19页，Migne编）：“Haec igitur quatuor Evangelia multo ante praedicta, Ezechielis quoque volumen probat, in quo prima visio ita contexitur: ’Et in medio sicut similitudo quatuor animalium: et vultus eorum facies hominis, et facies leonis, et facies vituli, et facies aquilae’ (Ezech. 1:5 et 10). Prima hominis facies Matthaeum significat, qui quasi de homine exorsus est scribere: ’Liber generationis Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham’ (Matth. 1). Secunda, Marcum, in quo [al. qua] vox leonis in eremo rugientis auditur: ’Vox clamantis in deserto [al. eremo], Parate viam Domini, rectas facile semitas ejus’ (Marc. 1:3). Tertia, vituli, quae evangelistam Lucam a Zacharia sacerdote sumpsisse initium praefigurat. Quarta, Joannem evangelistam, qui assumptis pennis aquilae, et ad altiora festinans, de Verbo Dei disputat. 意即：“这四卷福音书早已被预言，《以西结书》也证明了这一点；书中的第一个异象这样叙述：‘其中有四个活物的形象；它们的面貌，有人的脸、狮子的脸、牛犊的脸和鹰的脸’（结1:5、10）。第一张人的脸象征马太，他的记述仿佛从人开始：‘亚伯拉罕的后裔，大卫的子孙，耶稣基督的家谱’（太1章）。第二张象征马可，在他那里［异文作：在其中］，可以听见狮子在旷野吼叫的声音：‘在旷野［异文用另一表示旷野的词］有人声喊着说：预备主的道，修直他的路’（可1:3）。第三张是牛犊的脸，预示福音书作者路加从祭司撒迦利亚开始。第四张象征福音书作者约翰，他披上鹰的翅膀，奋飞高处，论述上帝的道。”

奥古斯丁 (Augustin)（《福音书的一致》 De Consens. Evang., 第I卷，第6章，见Migne编《全集》 Opera，第III卷，1046）将狮子配给马太，人配给马可（他错误地认为马可是马太的节略者），牛配给路加，鹰配给约翰，因为“他如鹰翱翔，超越人性软弱的云层，以极其敏锐而坚定的心眼，凝视永不改变的真理之光”。在另一处（《约翰福音讲论》 Tract. XXXVI. in Joh. Ev., 第8章，§ 1），奥古斯丁说：“其他三位福音书作者仿佛在地上与作为人的主同行（tamquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulabant），很少论及他的神性。但约翰仿佛觉得行走在地上使他困顿，便以一声雷霆般的巨响开始他的论述……其余全部内容都与这崇高的开端相称；他论述我们主的神性，是其他任何人所不能及的。”他称四福音书为“主的四重车驾，他乘此遍行世界，使列国顺服他那容易负的轭”。伪亚他那修 (Pseudo-Athanasius)（《圣经纲要》 Synopsis Script.）将人配给马太，牛配给马可，狮配给路加。这些象征配属上的差异，显露出这一类比的缺陷。与其将献祭的牛配给路加那彰显人性的福音书，不如同兰格 (Lange) 一样，将人配给它，也同样说得通。不过，哲罗姆的象征分配终于占了上风，并在第五世纪由塞杜利乌斯 (Sedulius) 以诗歌表达出来。

近代神学家中，林肯 (Lincoln) 主教沃兹沃思 (Wordsworth) 完全认同教父及他们一切虔诚的释经想象，他以如下雄辩的文字重新表达了基路伯的象征意义（见其《新约注释》 Com. on The New Test., 第I卷，第xli页）：“基督教会考察四福音书的起源，以及上帝乐意借圣灵丰丰富富赋予它们的特质，便在先知以西结于迦巴鲁河畔所见、因属天知识而得名的四个活基路伯中，发现了预示它们的图像。福音书与它们一样，数目为四；与它们一样，是那坐在基路伯之间的上帝的车驾；与它们一样，载着他乘有翼的宝座进入万邦；与它们一样，随圣灵引导而行；与它们一样，奇妙地联结在一起，以相同与相异之处彼此交织：翅膀交织着翅膀，轮子交织着轮子；与它们一样，遍体满了眼睛，闪耀属天的光辉；与它们一样，从天上掠至地上，又从地上升至天上，以闪电般的速度飞行，发出众水般的声音。它们的声音传遍万邦，它们的言语传到地极。”德国神学家中，兰格博士是这一象征体系最富巧思的阐释者，但他将马太与路加的象征互换。见其《耶稣生平》 (Leben Jesu, I., 156及下页)，以及《圣经概论》 (Bibelkunde，1881年)，第176页。

（2.）四位福音书作者的绘画形象，从地下墓窟中粗朴的开端，以及罗马与拉文纳 (Ravenna) 巴西利卡教堂的镶嵌画，直到近代，詹姆森夫人 (Mrs. Jameson) 已在《神圣与传说艺术》 (Sacred and Legendary Art) 第I卷，132–175页（波士顿版，1865年）作了很好的描述。她将基督教艺术的发展分为七个阶段：第一，单纯的事实，即福音书作者的四个书卷或四本书；第二，观念，即四条救恩之河自高处流下，滋润全地；第三，先知性的象征，即具有四重面貌的有翼基路伯；第四，基督教的象征，即《启示录》中的四“兽”（称“活物”更妥），有的带天使翅膀，有的没有；第五，象征性动物与人形的结合；第六，人的形象，各有可敬或受默示的神态，与教师和见证人的身份相称，各自伴有圣经所载的象征物——此时已不再是象征物，而是标志其独特使命与性格的属性标志；第七，仅有人的形象，手持自己的福音书，即他所记述的基督的教训与榜样。

（3.）宗教诗歌也表达同样的观念。我们在尤文库斯 (Juvencus) 与塞杜利乌斯的诗中可以见到，而在中世纪最伟大的拉丁诗人圣维克多的亚当 (Adam of St. Victor，约1172年) 的作品中，它达到了完美的境地。他以福音书作者为题，写了两首配乐诗：“Plausu chorus laetabundo”（“愿诗班欢然鼓掌”）与“Jocundare plebs fidelis”（“忠信的子民啊，欢欣吧”）。两首均见于戈蒂耶 (Gautier) 的编本（1858年），又载于迪格比·S. 朗厄姆 (Digby S. Wrangham) 的《圣维克多的亚当之礼仪诗歌》 (The Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St. Victor)，伦敦，1881年，第II卷，第156–169页，并附有优良的英译。第一首已有普兰普特里博士 (Dr. Plumptre) 所作的出色英译（载于埃利科特 (Ellicott) 丛书中他的《符类福音书注释》 Com. on the Synoptists，但省去了前三节）。我将引录第一首的第三节（并附朗厄姆的译文）：

“Circa thema generale,

Habet quisque speciale

Styli privilegium:

“同一主题之中，

各人皆有独特的

文笔风格：

Quod praesignat in propheta

先知所见，早已预示此事，

Forma pictus sub discreta

Vultus animalium.”

那形态各异的

活物面貌，已将其描绘。”

“虽是同一组事实，

各人却各以

独有的方式述说：

先知借四个活物，

各有不同形貌，

为我们逐一描绘。”

第二首诗中，以下几节最为出色：

Formam viri dant Matthaeo,

他们将人的形象赋予马太，

Quia scripsit sic de Deo,

因他如此记述上帝，

Sicut descendit ab eo,

Quem plasmavit, homine.

如何从他所造的

人而降生。

Lucas bos est in figura

路加以牛为象征，

Ut praemonstrat in Scriptura,

正如他在经书中开篇所示，

Hostiarum tangens jura

Legis sub velamine.

论及律法帕子之下

献祭的规例。

马太以人为象征，

因为正是他记述，

上帝如何从他所造的人，

以人的身份降生。

路加披着牛的形象，

因他的福音书开篇宣明，

揭开律法的帕子，

显明献祭的目的与终局。

Marcus, lleo per desertum

马可是旷野中的狮子，

Clamans, rugit in apertum:

放声呼喊，公然吼叫：

Iter fiat Deo certum,

Mundum cor a crimine.

为上帝修好道路，

使心脱离罪污，得以洁净。

Sed Johannes, ala bina

然而约翰凭着双翼，

Charitatis, aquilina

就是仁爱之翼，呈鹰的

Forma, fetur in divinaa

Puriori lumine.

形态，在更纯净的光中，

飞向神圣之境。

马可是狮子，扬起声音，

在旷野之地呼喊：

“洗净你们心中一切罪痕，

为我们的上帝预备道路！”

约翰带着鹰的形貌，

凭仁爱的双翼离开大地，

翱翔高处，在更清纯的光境中，

洞见上帝的真理。

Ecce forma bestialis

看哪，这活物的形象，

Quam Scriptura prophetalis

为先知的经书

Notat, sed materialis

Haec est impositio.

所记载，然而这名称

只是取自物质形体。

Currunt rotis, volant alis;

它们以轮奔行，以翼飞翔；

Inest sensus spiuritalis;

其中含有属灵的意义；

Rota gressus est aequalis,

Ala contemplatio.

轮是齐一的步履，

翼则是默观。

因此，因此，动物受造界的形象，

先知在所得的启示中

采用；但在运用时，

皆带来神圣的教训。

奥秘的意义蕴藏在

奔行的轮与飞翔的翼之中：

前者意味着同心一致，

翼则表示默观。

Quatuor decribunt isti

这四位作者描绘

Quadriformes actus Christi:

基督四重的作为：

Et figurant, ut audisti,

Quisque sua formula.

正如你所听见的，

各以自己的形象来表明。

Natus homo declaratur

他降生，显明为人；

Vitulus sacrificatur,

他如牛犊，被献为祭；

Leo mortem depraedatur,

Et ascendit aquila.

他如狮子，掠夺死亡；

又如鹰，升上高天。

这四位作者描绘基督，

展现他四重的作为，

各以独特方式将他表明——

这说法你已听闻；

人——由女子所生；

牛——被献为祭；

狮——已经战胜死亡；

鹰——飞升高天。

Paradisus lis regature,

乐园蒙这些河流灌溉，

Viret, floret, foecundatur,

青翠、开花、结实，

His abundat, his laetatur

Quatuor fluminibus:

因这四条河流而丰饶，

因它们而欢欣：

Fons est Christus, hi aunt rivi,

基督是泉源，它们是溪流，

Fons est altus, hi proclivi,

泉源在高处，溪流向下奔注，

Ut saporem fontis vivi

Ministrent fidelibus.

为将活泉的滋味

供给忠信的人。

这四条河流经伊甸，

不断赐下滋润与青翠，

使园中生长的花朵与果实，

在丰盛中欢笑歌唱。

基督是泉源，发出这些溪流；

泉源高在上，溪流向下奔；

好将生命之泉的超凡滋味，

带给众圣徒。

Horum rivo debriatis

愿我们畅饮它们的溪水而陶醉，

Sitis crescat caritatis,

使仁爱之渴愈发增长，

Ut de fonte pietatis

Satiemur plenius.

好从敬虔的泉源，

得着更丰足的饱足。

Horum trabat nos doctrina

愿它们的教训将我们拉出

Vitiorum de sentinâ,

罪恶的污淖，

Sicque ducat ad divina

Ab imo superius.

如此从卑下之地引我们上升，

进入神圣之境。

愿我们在它们的溪边畅饮陶醉，

使我们仁爱之渴愈加深切，

好在更圣洁之爱的丰沛泉源，

得着更完全的饱足！

愿它们所赐的教训，

将我们拉出身旁罪恶的泥淖，

在我们离地上升之时，

如此引我们进入神圣之境！

福音书的可信性，若不是遭遇那种不惜任何代价也要排除超自然与神迹的哲学和教条式怀疑主义，本来绝不会受到否认。它既使文化修养最高的人信服，也使没有学问的读者信服。卢梭 (Rousseau) 那令人瞩目的见证已广为人知，无须重述。我只引两位伟大作家的话，他们绝非偏袒正统信仰的人。美国一位论 (Unitarianism) 的杰出领袖 W. E. 钱宁 (W. E. Channing) 博士，针对施特劳斯 (Strauss) 和帕克 (Parker) 的怀疑主义说：“就真实的印记、意义的丰富、振奋人心的力量而论，我不知道有什么历史著作可以与福音书相比。”……“至于他［基督］的传记作者，他们的文字自能作证。从来没有比他们更质朴、更诚实的人。他们让我们看出，与基督交往的人，没有一个能够帮助他形成自己的观念，因为他们并不领会这观念……在我看来，福音书本身就是自己的凭据。它们质朴地记载了一位不可能由人虚构出来的人物；他生平中神奇的部分与平常的部分如此紧密相连，如此贯穿着同一精神，如此明显地出自同一个人，以致我看不出我们怎能接受其中一部分而不接受另一部分。”参见其侄所著《钱宁传》(Memoir)，第十版，波士顿，1874年，第II卷，第431、434、436页。对许多人来说，歌德 (Goethe) 的见证还更有分量。他在福音书中看到了神性在这个世界上前所未有的最高显现，以及道德修养的巅峰；人的心智无论在其他方面进步到什么地步，都永远不能超越它。他说：“Ich halte die Evangelien für durchaus ächt; denn es ist in ihnen der Abglanz einer Hoheit wirksam, die von der Person Christi ausging: die ist qöttlicher Art, wie nur je auf Erden das Göttliche erschienen ist.”（“我认为福音书全然真实；因为其中运行着一种崇高的光辉，出自基督本人；这种崇高具有神性，正如神性在地上所曾有过的显现。”）（《与爱克曼谈话录》[Gespräche mit Eckermann]，III，第371页。）临终前不久，他对同一位朋友说：“Wir wissen gar nicht, was wir Luther’n und der Reformation zu danken haben. Mag die geistige Cultur immer Fortschreiten, mögen die Naturwissenschaften in immer breiterer Ausdehnung und Tiefe wachsen und der menschliche Geist sick erweitern wie er will: über die Hoheit und sittliche Cultur des Christenthums, wie es in den Evangelien leuchtet, wird er nicht hinauskommen.”（“我们根本不知道自己应当多么感谢路德和宗教改革。精神文化尽可不断进步，自然科学尽可向更广更深处发展，人的精神尽可任意扩展，但它终究不能超越福音书中所焕发的基督教的崇高与道德修养。”）然而，施特劳斯和勒南 (Renan) 竟要我们相信，这样的福音书乃是没有学问的加利利人诗意的虚构！这倒会成为一切神迹中最不可置信的神迹。

§ 79. 对观福音书作者

（参见§ 78的参考文献。）

对观福音问题

第四福音书独树一帜，无论在内容、文体，还是在成书时间的间隔上，都与其余各卷大不相同。作者在第一世纪将近结束时写作，无疑必定知道较早的那三卷。

但前三卷福音书却呈现出一种独特现象：在内容和文体上，既有极其显著的一致，也有同样显著的差异，这是任何三位论述同一题目的作家之间都不曾有的。因此，它们被称为对观福音书 (Synoptic or Synoptical Gospels)，而三位福音书作者则称为对观福音书作者 (Synoptists)。¹³这一事实，使福音书在一切要点上能够协调，却又在许多次要细节上无法协调。其一致之处往往逐字相同，其分歧之处则往往近乎矛盾，却不损害根本的和谐。

马太、马可和路加之间的相互关系，或许是文学史上最复杂、最令人困惑的批判研究问题。这个问题因与基督生平密切相关而极为重要，近一个世纪以来，现代学者的学识、敏锐和才智也因此经受了极大的考验。各种可能的假说几乎已经穷尽，却仍未达成一致的结论。

相互关系

对观福音书作者大体上的一致，表现在以下方面：

对基督品格的描绘和谐一致。其面貌相同，只是从三个略有不同的角度呈现出来。他们都将他描绘为人子和上帝之子，为应许中的弥赛亚和救主；他教导最纯正的道理，过着毫无瑕疵的生活，行大能的神迹，为世人的罪受苦受死，并且得胜复活，建立他真理与公义的国度。三种叙事对其主人公独一无二的品格所呈现的这种一致，在世俗或神圣的历史和传记中都无可比拟，也是这幅肖像真实可靠的最佳保证。
福音历史的规划与编排一致，却又各有显著的特色。

(a.) 《马太福音》1–2章，以及《路加福音》1–2章、3:23–38，都从基督的家谱和幼年写起，但各从不同来源采集不同的事实。马可一开始便记述施洗者的传道；第四位福音书作者则追溯到道 (Logos) 永恒的先存。至于基督约三十年的私人生活，以及他如何在安静中为伟大的工作作准备，他们全都缄默不言；只有路加让我们瞥见他少年时在圣殿中的情景（路2:42–52）。

(b.) 约翰的传道和施洗为基督的公开事工预备道路，对观福音书作者都在平行段落中记述了这一点：太3:1–12；可1:1–8；路3:1–18。

(c.) 基督受洗和受试探，即弥赛亚职分的就任与弥赛亚所受的考验：太3:13–17；4:1–11；可1:9–11、12、13（十分简短）；路3:21–23；4:1–13。马太与路加在此处的差异非常轻微，例如第二次与第三次试探的次序。约翰记载了施洗者为基督所作的见证，也提及他的受洗（约1:32–34），但与对观福音书有所不同。

(d.) 基督在加利利的公开事工：太4:12–18:35；可1:14–9:50；路4:14–9:50。但《马太福音》14:22–16:12和《马可福音》6:45–8:26记述了一系列与加利利事工有关的事件，是路加所没有的；而《路加福音》9:51–18:14则另有一系列与最后一次前往耶路撒冷有关的事件和比喻，为他所独有。

(e.) 前往耶路撒冷的旅程：太19:1–20:31；可10:1–52；路18:15–19:28。

(f.) 进入耶路撒冷，以及最后一次逾越节前一周在那里所作的事：太21–25章；可11–13章；路19:29–21:38。

(g.) 受难、被钉十字架和复活，均有平行段落，但在次要细节上有相当多的分歧，尤其在彼得不认主和复活的记述中：太26–28章；可14–16章；路22–24章。

最后一周从进城到复活的事件（从棕枝主日到复活节），在各卷中都占据最大的篇幅，约为全部叙事的四分之一。

选取相同的材料，并且措辞相合，例如基督论末世的讲论，但同时也有数量几乎相等的细微差异。因此，医治瘫子的三份记述（太9:1–8及平行经文）、使五千人吃饱和登山变像的记述，几乎逐字相同。对观福音书作者偶尔也在同一上下文中，一致使用罕见而难解的词语和词形，例如ἐπιούσιος^*（见于主祷文）、指小词ὠτίον^*，意为小耳朵（指马勒古的耳朵，太26:51及平行经文），以及δυσκόλως^*，意为难（指财主进天国，太19:23等）。这些相合之处格外引人注目，因为我们的主通常讲亚兰语 (Aramaic)；不过，这些词也可能是巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的地方用语。¹⁴

措辞相同的部分，约有八分之七见于他人的话语，尤其是基督的话语；而差异最大的部分则见于作者自己的叙述。¹⁵这一事实不利于相互依赖的理论，并且证明：一方面，所有对观福音书作者都以敬畏之心忠于伟大夫子的教训；另一方面，他们在叙述事实时，其观察与判断却是自由而独立的。话语要准确转述，只能按照原来所说的形式；事件却可以用不同措辞如实叙述。

一致与差异的数量估算

相合与分歧的程度，可以按段落、经节和字词作近似计算。无论采用哪一种方法，都必须记住篇幅的差别：路加最长，共72页（按韦斯科特和霍特的希腊文新约）；马太次之，共68页；马可最短，共42页。（约翰为55页。）

1. 按段落估算。

马太共78段，马可67段，路加93段。

若依照罗伊斯 (Reuss) 博士，将对观福音书的文本分为124段，¹⁶

三位福音书作者共有47段。

仅马太与马可共有12段。

仅马太与路加共有2段。

仅马可与路加共有6段。

马太独有17段。

马可独有2段。

路加独有38段。

诺顿 (Norton)、斯特劳德 (Stroud) 和韦斯科特 (Westcott) 另作了一种分段安排。¹⁷若将各卷福音书的全部内容以100表示，便得出以下结果：

马可独有部分为7，相合部分为93。

马太独有部分为42，相合部分为58。

路加独有部分为59，相合部分为41。

［约翰独有部分为92，相合部分为8。］

若将所有相合部分的总量以100表示，其比例如下：

马太、马可和路加共有的相合部分为53。

马太与路加共有的相合部分为21。

马太与马可共有的相合部分为20。

马可与路加共有的相合部分为6。

韦斯科特说：“《马可福音》中，在《马太福音》和《路加福音》里找不到平行经文的，不超过二十四节，尽管马可处处展现出他叙事所独有的生动细节。”

2. 按经节估算。

按罗伊斯的计算，¹⁸

马太有330节为他所独有。

马可有68节为他所独有。

路加有541节为他所独有。

马太与马可共有、而路加所无的，为170至180节。

马太与路加共有、而马可所无的，为230至240节。

马可与路加共有、而马太所无的，约为50节。

三位对观福音书作者共有的经节总数，仅为330至370节。但由于第二福音书的经节通常较短，便无法按经节作精确的数学计算。

3. 按字词估算。

按字词数目，可以提供更为精确的检验。据我所知，这样的计算尚未进行；但拉什布鲁克 (Rushbrooke) 印制精美的《对观福音合参》(Synopticon，1880年) 已提供了计算的基础，其中以不同的字体和颜色，分别标示三位对观福音书作者共有的字词、每两位共有的字词，以及各自独有的字词。¹⁹三者都有的字词构成“三重传统”(triple tradition)，也最接近于三者直接或间接取材的共同希腊文来源。以下计算就是以这部《对观福音合参》为基础作出的：

A. —— 各卷字词数

三卷共有的字词数

共有字词的百分比。

马太 18,222

2,651，即

.14 ¹/₂

马可 11,158

2,651，即

.23 ³/₄

路加 19,209

2,651，即

.13 ³/₄

合计 48,589

7,953，即

.16 ¹/₃

B. —— 另外共有的字词数。共有字词的总百分比

马太与马可另共有2,793词（合计5,444词），占马太的29%以上

马可与马太另共有2,793词（合计5,444词），占马可的48%以上

马太与路加另共有2,415词（合计5,066词），占马太的27%以上

路加与马太另共有2,415词（合计5,066词），占路加的26%以上

马可与路加另共有1,174词（合计3,825词），占马可的34%以上

路加与马可另共有1,174词（合计3,825词），占路加的略低于20%

C. —— 马太独有的字词为10,363，占56%以上。

马可独有的字词为4,540，占40%以上

路加独有的字词为12,969，占67%以上

合计 27,872

D. —— 这些数字得出以下结果：

(a.) 对观福音书各自独有的字词，在48,000词中占28,000词，超过一半。

马太每100词中，有56词为其独有。

马可每100词中，有40词为其独有。

路加每100词中，有67词为其独有。

(b.) 三卷共同相合的数目，少于彼此分歧的数目。

马太每7词中，有1词与其余两卷福音书相同。

马可每4½词中，有1词与其余两卷福音书相同。

路加每8词中，有1词与其余两卷福音书相同。

(c.) 然而，将各卷福音书两两比较，便可明显看出，马太与马可的共同之处最多，而马太与路加的差异最大。

马可的一半见于马太。

路加的四分之一见于马太。

马可的三分之一见于路加。²⁰

(d.) 从这些数字得出的一般结论是：三卷福音书都在很大程度上偏离共同材料，亦即三重传统；其中马可偏离最少，路加最多（几乎是马可的两倍）。另一方面，马太和路加各自与马可的相近程度，都超过路加与马太彼此的相近程度。

问题的解决

解决对观福音问题，有三条途径：或是对观福音书作者彼此依赖；或是他们全都依赖较早的资料；或是兼有这两种依赖关系。这些假说又各有若干变式。²¹

一个令人满意的解答，必须既能解释相合之处，也能解释差异之处。若以此为检验标准，第一和第三种假说及其各种变式，都必须作为不能令人满意的解释而予以排除；这样，我们就只能接受第二种假说，至少认为它最有可能。

正典福音书彼此独立

没有直接证据表明，三位对观福音书作者中的任何一位，曾看过并使用其他人的著作；他们相合之处的性质，也并非不能用先前的资料同样容易、甚至更好地加以解释。主张相互依赖说，或称“借用”假说的人，²²彼此之间分歧很大：有些以马太为另外两卷、或至少其中一卷的来源；有些以马可为来源；另有些以路加为来源。还有些人从现有形式的对观福音书，追溯到原始马可 (Urmarkus)、原始马太 (Urmatthaeus)、原始路加 (Urlukas)，或其他虚构的正典以前的文献；这就承认了单纯的借用假说并不足以解释问题。

三位对观福音书作者都未曾提及其他两位；然而，路加却明确提到，此前已有许多人尝试撰写福音历史。帕皮亚 (Papias)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 及其他古代作者，都认定他们是独立写作的。²³第一个把马可视为马太抄写者的人是奥古斯丁 (Augustin)，而他的看法已被现代研究完全颠倒了。这整个理论把一位或两位对观福音书作者贬为既奴颜婢膝、又任意妄为的编纂者，姑且不说是剽窃者；它假定他们一面依赖别人，一面又故作独创，形成一种奇怪的混合；它削弱了他们所记历史的独立价值；而且，它无法解释为何遗漏极其重要的材料，也无法解释共同材料中的许多差异。因为，对观福音书作者往往恰在我们最期待他们一致的地方彼此不同。如果马可面前已有《马太福音》第1–2、5–7、13章，他为什么对婴孩时期的历史、整篇登山宝训（基督国度的《大宪章》）、主祷文以及重要的比喻缄默不言？他既是彼得的学生，为什么记下主对彼得的严厉责备（可8:27–33），却不提《马太福音》16:16–23中在此之前那句非凡的赞许：“你是磐石，我要把我的教会建造在这磐石上”？路加为什么省略登山宝训的大部分，以及复活之主在加利利的一切显现？他为什么略过伯大尼 (Bethany) 那感人的受膏场景，从而未能为应验主的预言尽一份力，即这奉献之举“无论在普天之下什么地方传这福音”，都要被述说，以纪念马利亚（太26:13；可14:9）？他既是保罗的学生和同伴，为什么没有记下博士的敬拜、迦南妇人的故事，以及向外邦人传福音的命令，而这些事却由犹太人的福音书作者马太清楚地记述了（太2:1–12；15:21–28；24:14；28:19）？路加和马太为什么给出不同的基督家谱，甚至对主所赐的祷告范本也有不同记述？路加除了省去颂荣（马太最好的抄本中也没有）之外，还省去了“愿你的旨意行在地上，如同行在天上”这一祈求，以及末了“救我们脱离凶恶”（或“那恶者”）的祈求，又以“罪”代替“债”，以“父”代替“我们在天上的父”。三位对观福音书作者为什么甚至在十字架上那简短而正式的罪状牌，以及设立圣餐的话语上也彼此不同，而保罗在57年写信，提到自己从主所得的启示时，却与路加一致（林前11:23）？倘若对观福音书作者看过其他人的著作，他们本可以轻易协调这些差异，避免出现矛盾的表象。若设想他们为掩饰剽窃而故意变更，在道德上是绝不可能的。若一位作者已经知道两卷福音书，我们便想不出他还有什么合理动机再增添第三卷，除非那两卷存在严重缺陷，但这些缺陷并不存在（至少马太和路加与马可相比，肯定不存在）；或者出于一种自负，然而这又与作者谦逊的语气、甚至连自己姓名都不提的做法不相容。

借用假说最有才干的支持者，也感受到这些困难，因此便求助于一卷或数卷正典以前的福音书，用来解释那些惊人的差异，以及无论在删略、增补还是编排上所显露的独立性。然而，除已经失传的希伯来文马太之外，这些正典以前的福音书，与艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn) 那部叙利亚—迦勒底语的《原始福音》(Urevangelium) 一样，都是虚构的；人们把它们比作古代天文学家的本轮，那是为支撑摇摇欲坠的圆周假说而发明的。

关于路加，我们已经指出，虽然人们认为他最后写作，他却最为偏离三重传统；而如今，人们几乎一致同意，他没有使用正典的马太。²⁴至于他是否使用了希伯来文的马太，以及希腊文马可或一部已经失传的原始马可，则仍有争议，至少是很可疑的。²⁵他遵循自己的计划；他略去了《马可福音》6:45–8:26中的整组事件；在共同段落中，他省去了马可那些生动的笔触，却另有同样生动的描写；他的希腊文造诣远胜马可，却仍有更多的希伯来语法，因为他大量取材于希伯来文资料。至于马太，他给人以原始古朴的印象；从奥古斯丁直到格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach) 和凯姆 (Keim)，都有才干卓著的学者维护他的独创性与完整性。至于马可，他那些看似缩写的地方，远非抄写者的手笔，而只是一个独立作者简洁迅速的叙述，其中有许多新鲜活泼的细节，足以充分证明他的独立性。另一方面，在若干叙事中，他比马太或路加任何一位都更详尽细致。²⁶最为勤勉而细密的研究和比较，已经成功地证明了他的独立性。²⁷因此，许多人把他视为最早的福音书作者，马太和路加都曾利用他的著作；但他们对于那究竟是正典马可，还是一部原始马可，意见并不一致。²⁸无论哪一种情形，马太和路加都将犯下剽窃之罪。倘若我们今日的一位历史学家，把另一位历史学家书中三分之一或一半的内容掠为己有，却连一句直接或间接的致谢都没有，我们会怎样看待他呢？让我们至少承认，福音书作者具有普通的诚实；这是所有道德的基础。

使徒的教导是所有对观福音书作者的首要来源

解决这一问题唯一确实的基础，见于路加的序言。他提到自己福音书的两个来源——但未必也是另外两卷对观福音书的来源——即最初那些“亲眼看见、又传道之人”（使徒、传福音者及其他最早的门徒）的口头传统或传授，以及“好些人”所撰写的若干“记述”；但这些记述显然并不完整，而且零散片断，以致促使他在详细考察之后，为“在我们中间已经成就的事”编写一部有条理的历史。除了这一重要提示，帕皮亚关于希伯来文马太福音和希腊文马可的那些著名论述，也可以给我们帮助；他将马可描述为传译者

对观福音书作者撰写福音书时所依据的首要而共同的来源，无疑就是活的使徒传统或教导，路加将其列在首位。这教导不多不少，就是诚实而明达的目击者对基督本人言行的忠实报告。²⁹他吩咐门徒传讲福音，而不是书写福音；当然，书写并未受到禁止，后来也成为纯正保存福音所必需的方式。起初，他们只有“听众”；律法和先知书却有读者。³⁰

犹太人和阿拉伯人 (Arabs) 特别训练记忆力，以便准确复述并长久保存神圣的言语和事迹。³¹《米示拿》(Mishna) 有两三百年未曾写定。在东方，一切都比西方更为固定不变；旅人仿佛被魔法带回到使徒和族长时代，不但置身于那个时代的环境之中，也看到了当时的风俗习惯。记忆越是依靠自身、越少依靠书籍，就越强健。³²

使徒的传统或宣讲，主要是历史性的，是述说拿撒勒人耶稣奇妙的公开生活，并以钉十字架和复活这两项至高的事实为中心。这从《使徒行传》所载的讲道范例中可以明显看出。这段历史日复一日、安息日复安息日，在公开和私下的场合不断传述。使徒和最早的传福音者，紧紧而敬虔地持守他们从神圣的夫子那里所见所闻的一切，他们的门徒也忠实地重述他们的见证。“他们都恒心遵守使徒的教训”（徒2:42）。敬畏之心不容许他们偏离这教导；然而，没有任何一个人，甚至彼得或约翰，能够领会基督全部的丰盛。一个人记得福音历史的这一部分，另一个人记得另一部分；有人更善于记忆言语，有人更善于记忆事实。随着能力和记忆的不同，这些差异自然会显露出来；共同的传统也在不发生任何实质改变的情况下，适应各类特定听众：起初是巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的希伯来人，随后是说希腊语的犹太人、归附犹太教者和外邦人。

福音书无非是这种使徒宣讲与教导的全面概要。马可以最简朴、最简短的形式呈现它，并且与我们从《使徒行传》所知的彼得的宣讲最为接近；就内容本质而言，它是最古老的，尽管在写作时间上未必如此。马太和路加所包含的，是同一传统经过扩展、更为成熟的形式：前者属于希伯来或犹太基督徒的类型，后者属于希腊化和保罗的类型，各自相应地选择细节。马可生动地记述基督公开生活的主要事实，“从约翰施洗起，直到他被接上升的日子为止”；这些事自然是最先向听众讲述的内容（徒1:22）。马太和路加则加上了婴孩时期的历史，以及许多言论、事迹和细节，这些通常是在更完整的教导过程中才会讲述的。

书面文献

在这些事件发生与正典福音书编成之间的三十年中，一部分传统被写成文字，是十分自然的事。一位传福音者会为自己使用而记下主要事件的梗概，另一位记下登山宝训，另一位记下比喻，另一位记下钉十字架和复活的历史，还有一位会从马利亚口中收集婴孩时期的历史和家谱。最初的听众中，可能有人趁当时印象犹新，记下了某些言语和事件。使徒固然没有受过高深教育，却不是不识字的人；他们能读能写，所受的基础教育也足以应付普通写作。这些早期笔记数量众多，如今却已全部消失；它们原本无意发表，即使发表了，也被正典福音书取代。因此，这里为种种推测和猜想性的批判研究留下了余地。³³路加说：“有好些人提笔作书，述说在我们中间所成就的事。”³⁴他所指的不可能是当时尚未写成的伪经福音书，也不可能是马太和马可的正典福音书；因为那两部书本可省去他许多劳苦，而且他也不敢不置一词地略过它们，另以自己一部改进的著作来取代。他所指的，是如今已失传、出自“亲眼看见又传道的人”的正典以前的记录；然而，这些记录如此零碎而不完备，足以使他有理由亲自尝试提供一部更令人满意、也更连贯的历史。他在巴勒斯坦 (Palestine)、安提阿 (Antioch)、希腊和罗马，都有收集此类文献的极好机会。马太本人就是目击者，马可又是彼得的同伴，因而较少需要已有的文献，主要可以凭借自己的记忆，以及仍保持原初新鲜面貌的活传统。他们可能早在完成福音书之前很久，就已写下供自己使用的梗概或笔记；因为这样重要的著作，不经长期持续的劳苦与用心，是无法完成的。最好的书籍，正如树木一般，逐渐而无声地长成。

结论

因此，我们的结论是：对观福音书作者在同一时期（姑且说是公元60至69年之间），于不同地方，各自独立地编写了福音书；其材料主要来自基督与最初门徒的活的教导，部分来自更早的零散文献。他们各自独立地为福音的真实性作见证。他们之间的相合与相异，并非刻意安排的结果，而是由于原初的记述本身具有统一性、丰富性与多样性，又经过不同心智的领受、理解、消化，并应用于不同处境、不同阶层的听众与读者。³⁵

传统的次序

正典中的编排次序，得到最古老传统中通行见解的支持；我们没有充分理由怀疑，这一次序正确地反映了写作的先后。³⁶使徒马太首先在巴勒斯坦，用亚兰语 (Aramaic)，依据自己的亲身观察与经历，并借助传统，写成福音书；其次是马可在罗马写作，忠实地重现彼得的宣讲；最后是路加，依据传统和各种可靠却零散的文献写成。但他们都在更高的默示之下写作，同样诚实，同样可信；他们写作时，许多最初的见证人仍然在世，第一代基督徒尚未过去，神话与传说也还没有任何滋生附会的机会。他们写作的时间不至于太晚，因而足以保证忠实；也不至于太早，因而能够防止讹变。他们所呈现的，不是伪经中事后臆想与虚构的浊流，而是历史真理的清泉。

福音故事一旦以这种完整的形态固定下来，此后便永远保持不变。没有失去什么，也没有增添什么。早先的梗概或正典以前的福音片段消失了，而记述同一福音的四部正典记录，不多也不少，足以满足一切需要，占据了整个领域；无论伪经的歪曲摹本，还是怀疑派的种种揣测，都未能将它们逐出。

公开的传统与内传的传统

除了体现在对观福音书中、面向广大民众的共同加利利 (Galilaean) 传统以外，还有一种内传的传统，述说基督在犹太 (Judaea) 的事工、他与使徒中蒙拣选的小群体之间的私下关系，以及他与父之间奥秘的关系。这传统的承载者，就是那位蒙爱的门徒；他曾倚靠夫子跳动的胸膛，领受了他最深奥的言语。他将这些话珍藏在记忆中，直到教会已经成熟，可以领受这一更高的启示时，才将它写入第四部福音书。

附注

对观福音书作者之间的关系问题，最早由奥古斯丁 (Augustin，卒于430年) 在其三卷《福音书作者的一致》(De Consensu Evangelistarum) 中加以认真讨论（米涅 (Migne) 编《全集》Opera，第III卷，第1041–1230页）。他为我们正典中的次序辩护：马太居首，约翰居末，两位使徒的门徒位居其中（in loco medio constituti tamquam filii amplectendi，意为“置于中间，如同应当怀抱的儿子”，I., 2）；但他错误地认为马可依赖马太（见下文I. 1）。他的看法在整个中世纪，直至十八世纪末，一直居于主导地位。逐字默示论阻碍了批判性的研究。

施托尔 (Storr，1786年) 以新教的自由精神重新探讨了这个问题，艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn，1794年) 和马什 (Marsh，1803年) 作了更详尽的研究；其后又有胡格 (Hug，一位开明的罗马天主教学者，1808年)、施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher，1817年)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler，1818年)、德韦特 (De Wette，1826年)、克雷德纳 (Credner，1836年) 等人继续探讨。施特劳斯 (Strauss) 的《耶稣传》(Leben Jesu，1836年) 和图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 为这一问题注入新的推动力，并赋予它新的重要性；鲍尔 (Baur，1847年)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、布莱克 (Bleek)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、迈耶 (Meyer)、凯姆 (Keim)、魏斯 (Weiss)，以及文献目录（第577页）所列的其他学者，都进一步推进了研究。这项研究发端于德国，随后也在法国、荷兰、英国和美国展开。

对观福音书问题宛如一座迷宫，岔路交错，曲折回环，要从中寻得出路并非易事；起初给人的感受是：

“这一切弄得我头昏脑胀，

仿佛磨轮在我脑中旋转。”

霍尔茨曼在其出色的著作《对观福音书》(Die Synopt. Evang.) 中，简述了截至1863年的各种见解；希尔根费尔德则在《新约历史批判导论》(Hist. Krit. Einl. in das N. T，第173–210页) 中，将其叙述延伸至1874年。另参罗伊斯《新约圣经史》(Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T.，I., §§ 165–198，第6版，1887年)、霍尔茨曼《导论》(Einleitung，第351页及后)，以及魏斯《导论》(Einl.，第473页及后)。以下对各种理论的分类相当完备，不过其中几种彼此重叠，或相互结合。

I. 默示假说将对观福音书作者之间的一致，直接而完全地归因于圣灵，借此快刀斩断戈尔迪之结 (gordian knot)。但这什么也没有解释，反而使上帝对福音书作者之间的一切差异及可能有的不准确之处负责。任何默示论，若不给圣经作者个人的能动作用、各自的特点，以及写作时运用天然才智留下余地，就连片刻也站立不住。路加在序言中明确说明了自己编写福音书时所起的作用，以及他如何运用所能得到的资料来源。

相互依赖假说，或借用假说 (Benützungshypothese)，认为一位或两位福音书作者借用了另一位的作品。这一假说可以有多少种变化，取决于三位作者可以按多少种次序排列。

马太、马可、路加。这是传统的次序，支持者有奥古斯丁——他颇不敬地称马可是“马太的跟班与删节者”（tamquam pedissequus et breviator Matthäi，II., 3）——以及格劳秀斯 (Grotius)、米尔 (Mill)、本格尔 (Bengel)、韦特施泰因 (Wetstein)、胡格（1808年）、希尔根费尔德、克洛斯特曼 (Klostermann)、凯尔 (Keil)。英国作者中则有汤森 (Townson) 和格雷斯韦尔 (Greswell)。

除上述学者外，还有许多学者坚持这个次序，却不承认彼此存在依赖关系；我认为，将这一次序与传统假说结合起来，才是正确的看法。参见下文V及正文。

2. 马太、路加、马可。最早提出这一次序的是亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)（优西比乌 (Eus.)，《教会史》H. E.，VI. 14），但他并未暗示马可除依赖彼得以外，还依赖任何其他人。格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach) 在两篇学术论文（1789年）中重申这一次序，并认为马可是从马太和路加两者摘编而成。泰勒 (Theile，1825年)、弗里茨舍 (Fritzsche，1830年)、西费尔特 (Sieffert，1832年)、德韦特、布莱克、安格尔 (Anger)、施特劳斯、鲍尔和凯姆也持此说。图宾根学派利用这一次序来支持倾向理论（见下文）。凯姆将马太的写作时间定为公元66年，路加为90年，马可为100年。

布莱克是这一次序最为审慎的拥护者（《新约导论》Einleitung in das N. T.，第2版，1866年，第91页及后、第245页及后）；但曼戈尔德 (Mangold) 在布莱克此书第3版（1875年，第388页及后）中改变了这一看法，转而主张原始马可福音的优先性。

3. 马可、马太、路加。马可的独创性与优先性，最早由科佩 (Koppe，1782年) 和施托尔（1786及1794年）提出。同一观点又由拉赫曼 (Lachmann，1835年) 重新倡导，魏塞 (Weisse，1838、1856年) 详加发挥（希尔根费尔德称他为“保守派马可假说的创始人”——“Urheber der conservativen Markushypothese”）；维尔克 (Wilke) 则在《最初的福音书作者》(Der Urevangelist，1838年) 中，更加细致地探讨了各项细节（但他认为现存马可有许多插入文字，因而追溯到一部原始马可福音）；B. 魏斯 (B. Weiss) 也在《马可福音》(Das Marcusevangelium，1872年) 中作了详论。以不同方式支持此说的，还有希齐希 (Hitzig)（《约翰·马可》Johannes Markus，1843年）、埃瓦尔德（1850年，但另设各种更早的来源）、里奇尔 (Ritschl，1851年)、罗伊斯、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、托布勒 (Tobler)、雷维尔 (Réville，1862年)、艾希塔尔 (Eichthal，1863年)、申克尔 (Schenkel)、维蒂兴 (Wittichen)、霍尔茨曼（1863年）、魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker，1864年)、朔尔滕 (Scholten，1869年)、迈耶（《马太福音注释》Com. on Matt.，第6版，1876年，第35页）、勒南 (Renan)（《福音书》Les Évangiles，1877年，第113页；但他认为，希腊文马可以前，已有一部现已失传的希伯来文马太，第93页及后）。英语作者中，乔丹山 (Jordan Hill) 的詹姆斯·史密斯 (James Smith)（《论福音书的起源》等，Dissertat. on the Origin of the Gospels, etc.，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1853年）、G. P. 费舍尔 (G. P. Fisher)（《基督教的起源》Beginnings of Christianity，纽约，1877年，第275页），以及 E. A. 阿博特 (E. A. Abbott)（《大英百科全书》“Encyclop. Brit.”，第X卷，1879年，“福音书”条），也持同一观点。

尽管鲍尔和凯姆提出抗议，马可优先说如今仍是德国批评学者中占主导地位的理论；这两位学者对第二位福音书作者几乎怀有个人的敌意。凯姆最后的一些言论中，就有一篇激烈反对“尊马可为首”（Präkonisation des Markus）的抗议文字（《原始基督教论集》Aus dem Urchristenthum，1878年，第28–45页）。但这一理论的拥护者，在究竟正典马可还是一部已失传的原始马可才是最初福音书的问题上，意见不一。前者称为“马可假说”(Markushypothese)，后者称为“原始马可假说”(Urmarkushypothese)。我们承认马可的独创性，但这并不必然意味着他在写作时间上居先。马太和路加各自独有的材料太多，不可能依赖马可；从整体而言，它们的价值也大得多，尽管在细节上马可是不可或缺的。

马可、路加、马太。赫尔德 (Herder，1796年)、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar，1866及1870年)。
路加、马太、马可。毕兴 (Büsching，1776年)、埃文森 (Evanson，1792年)。

6. 路加、马可、马太。福格尔 (Vogel，1804年)、施内肯布格尔 (Schneckenburger，1882年)。

这些变体纷纭而又彼此冲突，动摇了整个借用理论。这一理论使若干极重要段落的省略，例如太12–17章、14:22–16:12，以及路10–18:14，还有共同段落中的差异，都变得完全无法解释。参见正文。

原始福音书 (Urevangelium) 假说，认为有一部写于对观福音书以前、曾被它们用作共同来源、如今却已失传的福音书。

一部已失传、具有官方性质的希伯来文或叙利亚—迦勒底文福音书，很早就由使徒们于约35年在巴勒斯坦写成，供巡回传道者作手册使用。这就是博学的艾希霍恩教授（1794、1804、1820年）著名的“原始福音书假说”(Urevangeliumshypothese)；赫伯特·马什主教 (Bishop Herbert Marsh，1803年)、格拉茨 (Gratz，1809年) 和贝特霍尔德 (Bertholdt) 接受了它，并加以修改（鲍尔说，贝特霍尔德以“属肉体的自恃”笃信此说）。

然而，无论希伯来文还是希腊文，都没有这样一部重要福音书的任何踪迹。路加对此一无所知，尽管他提到曾有数人尝试记述这段历史的若干部分。为了贯彻自己的假说，艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn) 不得不假定原始文献有四种经过改动的抄本或修订本，后来又加上了希腊文修订本。马什 (Marsh) 比这位德国批评家还要德国化，把修订本的数目增加到八种，其中包括希伯来文原本的一种希腊文译本。这样，每遇到一组新的事实，就可以杜撰一种新的修订本，以至无穷 (ad infinitum)。如果原始福音书是使徒的著作，就不需要改动，而且本应保存下来；如果它有如此多的缺陷，那它便无足轻重，也不适合作为正典福音书的基础。艾希霍恩的假说如今已普遍被放弃，但埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 等人又以修改后的形式重提此说。见下文。

《希伯来人福音书》，至今尚存一些残篇。主张此说的有莱辛 (Lessing，1784年，见其死后三年出版的一部著作)、塞姆勒 (Semler，不过他屡次改变看法)、韦伯 (Weber，1791年)、保卢斯 (Paulus，1799年)。但这部书是异端或伊便尼派 (Ebionitic) 对《马太福音》的篡改，其现存残篇与正典福音书相去甚远。
希伯来文《马太福音》（Urmatthäus，原始马太）。此说假定，据帕皮亚 (Papias) 记载由马太用希伯来文写成的那部著名的语录 (Logia)，不仅是我们主的言论汇集（施莱尔马赫、埃瓦尔德、罗伊斯，第I卷，第183页，曾如此解释这个词），也包括他的事迹，即“所说与所行的事”。但无论如何，希伯来文《马太福音》已经失传，不能作为推论的可靠基础。胡格 (Hug) 和罗伯茨 (Roberts) 否认它曾经存在。见下一节。
正典的《马可福音》。
正典以前的原始马可福音 (Urmarkus)。这最后两种假说已在第二大类之下提过（II. 3）。

多种片段文献说（Diegesentheorie，叙事文献说），或不同修订本说。此说以路加的一句话为依据：“既有好些人提笔作叙述（διήγησιν^*），述说在我们中间已经成就的事”（路1:1）。施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher，1817年) 假定有大量这样的书面文献或独立叙事，对对观福音书作者的处理极为自由，而主要将自己的信仰建立在约翰之上。

埃瓦尔德 (Ewald，1850年) 独立地发挥了类似的观点，猛烈反对图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 的“兽性般的狂野”。他以惯有的、神谕般的自信告诉我们：传福音的腓利（徒8章）最先用希伯来文写了一篇历史梗概，接着马太也用希伯来文编成一部言论集（帕皮亚所说的 λόγια^*），后来有了数种希腊文译本；在这一系列福音书中，马可居第三，马太居第五，路加居第九，体现着“历史的崇高图景、属天的推进” ("Höhebilder, die himmlische Fortbewegung der Geschichte,")，而这些最后在约翰那里取得了最完美的形式。

克斯特林 (Köstlin)、维蒂亨 (Wittichen) 和斯霍尔滕 (Scholten) 同样假定有多部正典以前的福音书，而这些只存在于他们的批判想象之中。

勒南 (Renan，《福音书》〔Les Evang.〕，导论，第vi页) 将福音书分为三类：(1) 第一手的原始福音书，直接取材于口传传统，并无在先的书面文本：希伯来文《马太福音》和希腊文原始马可福音；(2) 一部分是原始材料、一部分是第二手材料的福音书：我们那些被错误归于马太、马可和路加的正典福音书；(3) 第二手和第三手的福音书：马吉安 (Marcion) 的福音书和伪经福音书。

V. 共同口传传统说（Traditionshypothese，传统假说）。主张此说的有赫尔德 (Herder，1796年)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler，1818年，最先充分发展此说)、舒尔茨 (Schulz，1829年)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、兰格 (Lange)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard，1868年)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch，1845、1852年)、诺顿 (Norton)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、韦斯科特 (Westcott，1860年；第6版，1881年)、戈代 (Godet，1873年)、凯尔 (Keil，1877年) 等。福音故事经过不断重复而形成，或更确切地说，从一开始就有了统一的形式，甚至在细微之处也是如此，尤其是基督的话语。就此说所能解释的范围而言，它是正确的；但至少就路加而言，还须以正典以前的片段文献或笔记（διηγήσεις^*）加以补充。参见正文。

倾向假说 (Tendenzhypothese)，或教义改编说。主张此说的有鲍尔 (Baur，1847年) 和图宾根学派（施韦格勒〔Schwegler〕、里奇尔〔Ritschl〕、福尔克马尔〔Volkmar〕、希尔根费尔德〔Hilgenfeld〕、克斯特林）；英国的塞缪尔·戴维森 (Samuel Davidson) 也追随他们（见其《新约导论》〔Introd. to the New Test.〕，1868年；修订版，1882年）。每位福音书作者都为自己所属的宗教学派或党派的利益而修改福音历史。马太代表犹太基督徒的倾向，路加代表保罗派或外邦基督徒的倾向，马可则消除两者的分歧，或为由前者过渡到后者铺路。福音书的每一处个别笔触或特征，都被联系到彼得主义与保罗主义之间的教义对立。鲍尔认为，《马太福音》相对而言是最原始、最可信的福音书，但它本身也是对一部更古老的亚兰文《希伯来人福音书》的自由重写。其后是一部原始路加福音 (Urlukas)，一部倾向纯粹保罗主义的福音书。马可为了保持中立，从我们现有的《马太福音》和原始路加福音中编纂成书。然后才出现现有的《路加福音》，带着谋求和解的大公教会倾向。鲍尔把彼得主义与保罗主义之间的差别夸大到远远超出历史真实的界限，将神圣的作者们变成一群现代式的党人和好争斗的神学家，把第四福音书作为纯属理想的虚构而排除，并将所有福音书的成书年代都推迟了约七十年（130–170年）；然而，根据殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、他提安 (Tatian)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 一致的见证，它们在那时早已为基督教会普遍使用。福尔克马尔在不计后果的激进主义上甚至超过鲍尔，虽然在其他方面有所修正，例如承认马可的优先地位、路加相对于马吉安的原创性，并将《马太福音》的年代提前到约110年。其观点的概述见希尔根费尔德的《导论》(Einleitung)，第199–202页。但里奇尔和希尔根费尔德已大大缓和了图宾根学派的过激之论。里奇尔把马可置于首位，福尔克马尔在这一点上与他一致。希尔根费尔德将《马太福音》的写作定于第一世纪的第五十年代（不过他认为，该书在耶路撒冷毁灭后不久略有改动），随后是马可，为从彼得主义过渡到保罗主义铺路，路加则在第一世纪结束以前最后写成。他在与这位图宾根大师长达五年的论争中（1850–1855年），有力地维护了自己的理论，并在《导论》（1875年）中重申此说。这样，他又把我们带回到传统的次序。至于成书时间，内证强有力地支持这一历史传统：对观福音书作者是在耶路撒冷毁灭以前写作的。

§ 80. 马太

批判研究

伯恩哈德·魏斯 (Bernh. Weiss)：《马太福音及其路加平行经文释义》(Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklärt)。哈雷 (Halle)，1876年。极为详尽。

爱德华·拜伦·尼科尔森 (Edw. Byron Nicholson)：《希伯来人福音书：残篇翻译及注释》(The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Its Fragments translated and annotated)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1879年。

释经著作

《马太福音》注释的作者有俄利根 (Origen)、哲罗姆 (Jerome)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom)、梅兰希顿 (Melanchthon，1523年)、弗里茨舍 (Fritzsche)、德韦特 (De Wette)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、舍格 (Schegg，罗马天主教，1856–58年，3卷)、J. A. 亚历山大 (J. A. Alexander)、兰格 (Lange，由沙弗翻译并增订，纽约〔N. Y.〕，1864年及后)、詹姆斯·莫里森 (James Morison，格拉斯哥人，伦敦〔Lond.〕，1870年)、迈耶 (Meyer，第6版，1876年)、维歇尔豪斯 (Wichelhaus，哈雷〔Halle〕，1876年)、凯尔 (Keil，莱比锡〔Leipz.〕，1877年)、普兰普特里 (Plumptre，伦敦〔Lond.〕，1878年)、卡尔 (Carr，剑桥〔Cambr.〕，1879年)、尼科尔森 (Nicholson，伦敦〔Lond.〕，1881年)、沙弗 (Schaff，纽约〔N. Y.〕，1882年)。

马太的生平

马太³⁷原名利未，是十二使徒之一，原先在迦百农作税吏，即征税者³⁸，因此，在通行两种语言的加利利，他精通希腊文和希伯来文，并且惯于记账。这一职业为他按专题次序用两种语言写作福音书作了准备。在三部对观福音书的使徒名录中，他都与多马相联，与他组成第四对；在马可和路加的名录中，他列在多马之前，在他自己的福音书中却列在多马之后（也许是出于谦逊）。³⁹因此有人推测，他是多马（低土马〔Didymus〕，即双生子）的孪生兄弟，或与他同工。多马是一个诚实而认真的怀疑者，性情忧郁，然而看见复活的主以后，终于完全信服；马太则是一个信心坚定、意志果决的人。

关于他作使徒的劳苦，我们没有确切的资料。不同的记载将巴勒斯坦 (Palestine)、埃塞俄比亚 (Ethiopia)、马其顿 (Macedonia)、幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 流域、波斯 (Persia) 和米底亚 (Media) 列为他的宣教地区。按照最古老的传统，他是自然去世的，而后来的记述则说他是殉道者。⁴⁰

第一福音书是他不朽的著作，完全值得为之献出漫长的一生，甚至许多生。就时间而言，税吏马太在福音书作者的次序中居首，正如基督曾从她身上赶出许多鬼的抹大拉的马利亚，最先宣告了复活的佳音。这并不是说，它因此就是最好或最重要的——最好的在最后——而是说，它自然先于其余福音书，正如基础先于其上的建筑。⁴¹

借着他所写的福音书，他至今仍在履行那使万民进入基督门下受教的大使命（太28:19）。

将关于马太其人及其生平的少量资料与他的福音书联系起来，可以得出以下几个可能的推论：

马太是希伯来人所生的希伯来人，然而比较开通，因为他作税吏，经常与来自大马士革 (Damascus) 的商人接触。诚然，这一职业在犹太人眼中是不光彩的，也很难与全民族对弥赛亚的期望相容；但迦百农属于分封王希律·安提帕 (Herod Antipas) 的领地，而希律家族虽然对异教罗马百般依附，却仍在一定程度上与犹太民族连为一体。
他是个有些资财、社会地位良好的人。他的职位收入丰厚，他拥有房屋，并设告别筵席款待“一大群”旧同伴，由耶稣居于首席。⁴²这同时也是他向世界及其财富、享乐和尊荣的告别。“我们可以想象，这对马太是何等喜乐的一次筵席：他留意耶稣的言语行动，将当时的情景和谈话珍藏在记忆中，后来受默示，运用他作书记的才能将这些写下，教导后世历代的教会。”⁴³正是在那次筵席上，耶稣说了那句特别适用于马太、也特别触犯在场法利赛人的话：“我来本不是召义人，乃是召罪人。”值得注意的是，使徒时期以后对《马太福音》最早的引文，正是这一段以及另一段与之相似的话（见下文）。
他是个性格果断的人，能够为自己的信念作出巨大的牺牲。当他按东方的习惯坐在税关上，蒙召跟从耶稣时，就“撇下所有的，起来，跟从了他”；他立刻认出耶稣是以色列真正的王，并信靠他。⁴⁴无论一个人所有的是多是少，没有人能比撇下自己的“一切”做得更多；也没有人能比“跟从基督”做得更好。

福音书的特性与宗旨

第一福音书给人以原始古朴的印象。书中以耶路撒冷城、圣殿、祭司制度与献祭，以及犹太教整个宗教和政治体系仍然存在为前提，同时却暗示它们即将倾覆。⁴⁵只有它记载了基督所说的这些话：他来不是要废掉律法和先知，乃是要成全；他奉差遣，不过是到以色列家迷失的羊那里去。⁴⁶因此，最优秀的批评家把此书的写作年代定在耶路撒冷毁灭以前数年。⁴⁷

《马太福音》显然是为希伯来人及希伯来基督徒而写，旨在证明拿撒勒的耶稣就是所应许的弥赛亚，是以色列最后而又最伟大的先知、祭司和君王。它以读者熟悉犹太习俗和巴勒斯坦各地为前提（其他福音书则对此加以解释）。⁴⁸它是旧约与新约之间的纽带。正如有人说得好，⁴⁹它是“耶和华向他古时的百姓发出的最后通牒：信吧，否则就预备灭亡！承认耶稣是弥赛亚，否则就等候他来作你们的审判者！”因此，马太常常用他特有的措辞——“这是要应验”或“这就应验了”——指出弥赛亚预言在福音历史中的应验。⁵⁰

按照这一计划，马太以耶稣的家谱开篇，表明他是大卫王和犹太民族之祖亚伯拉罕的子孙与后嗣，应许正是赐给他们的。东方的博士远道而来，敬拜这位新生的犹太人之王。希律 (Herod) 阴暗的猜疑与嫉妒被激起，预示了弥赛亚日后所受的逼迫。逃往埃及，以及从这既是避难之所又是奴役之地的国家归来，都应验了以色列那具有预表意义的历史。施洗约翰为基督预备道路，完成了先知职分的使命。耶稣在就任弥赛亚并经受试炼之后，以登山宝训开始他的公开事工；这篇讲论与西奈山的立法相对应，包含了他国度的根本律法。这篇讲论和整部福音书的主旨，乃是基督来要成全律法和先知；这既表明两种宗教彼此协调，也表明基督教具有超越的优越性。他来要在世上建立天国，他的使命在其中取得了有组织、有制度的形式。马太使用这个词（ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν^*）不下三十二次，其他福音书作者和保罗则说“上帝的国”（ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ^*）。没有别的福音书作者如此充分地阐明这一观念：基督和他的国度乃是以色列一切盼望与渴求的成全；也没有人如此鲜明地展示以色列历史转折点上这场危机的可畏与庄严。

然而，马太虽然从犹太基督徒的立场写作，却远非主张犹太化或心胸狭窄。他以最广阔的视野看待预言。在福音书作者中，他最富民族性，却又最具普世性；最着眼于过去，却又最展望未来。就在婴孩耶稣的摇篮旁，他引入了从遥远东方前来敬拜的博士，作为众多信主的外邦人的先驱；这些人“将从东从西而来，在天国里与亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各一同坐席”，而“本国的子民竟被赶到外边黑暗里去”。那异教的百夫长和迦南妇人所显出的信心，是耶稣在以色列中未曾见过的。弥赛亚在加利利和犹太被自己的百姓拒绝、逼迫。他责备哥拉汛、伯赛大和迦百农，因为他虽在这些城中行了异能，它们却不悔改；他为耶路撒冷流泪，因为她不肯到他这里来；他向犹太教的教权阶层宣告灾祸，并说出神权政体将遭毁灭的可怕预言。这一切都由马太最充分地记载下来；而他以向万民普传福音的命令，以及基督应许与他的百姓不间断地同在、直到世界末了，作为全书的结语，实在最为贴切而崇高。⁵¹

按主题编排

本书的编排清楚而有条理，以主题为主，而非依照年代次序。在基督讲论的详备程度上，它远胜于《马可福音》和《路加福音》；在事件的先后次序上，却须由这两卷书加以补充。马太将同类的言语与事迹归在一起，特别着眼于基督的教训；因此，帕皮亚 (Papias) 称它为主的圣言集，十分恰当。它尤其是一部教诲性的福音书。

第一组教诲是在八福山上所作的登山宝训，其中包含基督国度的立法，并邀请全体百姓进入这国度，向虚心的人和清心的人提出最丰盛的应许（《马太福音》5–7章）。第二组是对门徒传道工作的训示（《马太福音》10章）。第三组是关于上帝之国的比喻集，阐明它的成长、争战、价值和终极完成（《马太福音》13章）。第四组是对法利赛人的斥责（《马太福音》23章）；第五组则是关于耶路撒冷毁灭和世界末了的预言（《马太福音》24、25章）。

在这些主要组别之间，穿插着基督较短的讲论：论他与施洗约翰的关系（11:1–19）；宣告加利利不悔改之城的灾祸（11:20–24）；为启示赐给有孩童般心灵的人而感恩（11:25–27）；邀请劳苦担重担的人（11:28–30）；论遵守安息日，并警告法利赛人，因为他们把他的神迹归于撒但的能力，正走向犯下不可赦免之罪的地步（《马太福音》12章）；抨击长老的遗传和法利赛人的假冒为善（《马太福音》15、16章）；在彼得作出伟大认信之后，预言教会的建立，同时预告他将经由受难走向得胜（《马太福音》16章）；论小孩子，以他们的单纯与谦卑教导人，抵挡教权骄傲的试探；论国度中饶恕的本分，以及不肯饶恕的仆人的比喻（《马太福音》18章）；针对法利赛人所讲的休妻问题；为小孩子祝福；警告财富的危险；葡萄园工人的比喻，以及将来赏赐的性质（《马太福音》19、20章）；主对法利赛人和撒都该人试探性问题所作的得胜回答（《马太福音》22章）。

这些讲论与基督所行大神迹和生平事件的叙述相连。神迹也同样集中编排（如《马太福音》8–9章），或作简要概述（如4:23–25）。登山变像（《马太福音》17章）构成他从主动行事的生涯转入被动受苦生涯的转折点；这是天上荣光在地上的显现，是基督未来荣耀的预尝，是复活的凭据，并使耶稣和他所拣选的三个门徒得着力量，以面对即将来临的危机；这危机在十字架上达到顶点，并以复活告终。⁵²

特有的段落

《马太福音》有若干独有的段落：

主的十篇讲论，即登山宝训的大部分（《马太福音》5–7章）；为启示赐给婴孩而感恩（11:25–27）；向担重担的人发出的感人邀请（11:28–30），足与《约翰福音》的任何篇章媲美；对闲话的警告（12:36、37）；宣告彼得有福，并预言建立教会（16:17–19）；论谦卑与饶恕的讲论的大部分（《马太福音》18章）；犹太人被弃绝（21:43）；对文士和法利赛人的斥责（《马太福音》23章）；对末日审判的描述（25:31–46）；大使命，以及基督应许同在直到世界末了（28:18–20）。
十个比喻：稗子；隐藏的宝贝；重价的珍珠；撒网（13:24–50）；不怜恤人的仆人（18:23–35）；葡萄园的工人（20:1–16）；两个儿子（21:28–32）；王子婚筵（22:1–14）；十个童女（25:1–13）；才干（25:14–30）。
两个神迹：医治两个瞎子（9:27–31）；鱼口中的一块钱（stater，17:24–27）。
事实与事件：博士来拜；无辜婴孩被屠杀；逃往埃及；从埃及回到拿撒勒（均见《马太福音》2章）；法利赛人和撒都该人来到约翰施洗的地方（3:7）；彼得尝试在海面上行走（14:28–31）；缴纳圣殿税（17:24–27）；犹大所作的交易、他的懊悔和自杀（26:14–16；27:3–10）；彼拉多之妻的梦（27:19）；已逝圣徒在耶路撒冷显现（27:52）；坟墓的守卫（27:62–66）；公会的谎言和对兵丁的贿赂（28:11–15）；复活清晨的地震（28:2，是27:51所述震动的重现，并与墓石被滚开相联系）。

文体

马太的文体质朴无华，平静庄重，甚至具有威严；不及马可那样生动而富于画面感；却比路加更加平稳一致，因为他不依赖书面资料。他的行文带有希伯来语色彩，但不及马可浓厚，也不及《路加福音》1–2章那样显著。他略去了某些未曾留意的小细节，这些细节马可却从彼得那里听到，路加则从目击者那里获知，或在零散的文献中找到。他的独特用语，除经常使用“天国”以外，还有称上帝为“我们在天上的父”，称耶路撒冷为“圣城”和“大君的城”。在记述基督教训的详备程度上，除约翰外，他超过所有人。他所记下的那些满有生命与能力、比天地更长存的话语（24:34），其庄严感人，无与伦比。一句紧接一句，带着压倒一切的力量，宛如从上界接连闪发的电光。⁵³

教父关于马太的记载

《使徒教训》(Didache of the Apostles) 的作者熟知第一福音书；他写作于80至100年之间，大量使用了这部福音书，尤其是登山宝训。⁵⁴

其次，明确涉及这部福音书的是《巴拿巴书信》(Epistle of Barnabas)；作者引用了希腊文《马太福音》的两处经文，其中一处是22:14：“被召的人多，选上的人少”，并冠以“经上记着说”这一仅用于受默示著作的重要措辞。⁵⁵这清楚表明，至迟在第二世纪初，此书已是教会公认的权威。《约翰福音》也借着它所省略的许多内容，间接以全部对观福音书的存在为前提。

希伯来文《马太福音》

接下来，我们从希拉波立 (Hierapolis) 的主教帕皮亚那里，听说有一部希伯来文《马太福音》；他是“约翰的听众，坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的同伴”。⁵⁶他从使徒及其门徒那里搜集了各种使徒传统，收入其五卷本《主圣言释义》（λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις^*）。这部已经失传的著作，有一段残篇由优西比乌 (Eusebius) 保存下来，其中明确说：“马太用希伯来语编成了〔主的〕圣言，各人则尽自己的能力加以翻译。”⁵⁷

不幸的是，希伯来文《马太福音》若曾存在，如今也已经失传；因此，对于这段著名记载，无论是“圣言”（λογία^*）的确切含义，还是整个记载的真实性，人们都有很大分歧。

有些人认为，“圣言”仅指主的讲论；⁵⁸另一些人则认为，它也包括叙事部分。⁵⁹但无论如何，希伯来文《马太福音》必定主要是一部有条理的讲论集。这最符合 Logia 一词自然而通常的含义，也最符合我们的正典《马太福音》与《马可福音》相比，教训成分实际上占有优势这一事实。A parte potiori fit denominatio（名称取自其主要部分）。
有人完全否定希伯来文原本的记载，认为这纯属帕皮亚 (Papias) 的错误：他把它与伊便尼派 (Ebionites) 的《希伯来人福音》混淆了；我们从若干残篇中得知后者的内容。⁶⁰据说，帕皮亚虽然虔诚，却轻信而才智薄弱。⁶¹但这并不损害他的诚实，也不能使一则简单的历史记载失效。又有人说，希腊语的普及使希伯来文福音书成为多余。然而，亚兰语 (Aramaic) 当时仍是巴勒斯坦 (Palestine)（参《使徒行传》21:40；22:2）及幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 流域各国的本地语言，也是通行的主要语言。

在基督教的早期阶段，存在一部希伯来文福音书，本身就是合乎情理的。而且，希伯来文《马太福音》的存在，绝非仅以帕皮亚为依据。一些最受尊重的教父，如爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、⁶²潘代努 (Pantaenus)、⁶³俄利根 (Origen)、⁶⁴优西比乌 (Eusebius)、⁶⁵耶路撒冷的区利罗 (Cyril of Jerusalem)、⁶⁶伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius)⁶⁷和哲罗姆 (Jerome)，⁶⁸都以各自独立的见证证实了这一点。

这部希伯来文《马太福音》，不可与犹太化的《希伯来人福音》等同；后者是伪经福音书中最好的一部，总共存留了三十三则残篇。哲罗姆及其他教父明确区分二者。后者可能是将前者改编而成，供伊便尼派和拿撒勒派 (Nazarenes) 使用。⁶⁹真理总在异端之先，正如真币在伪币之先，真实的肖像在讽刺漫画之先。库尔顿 (Cureton) 和特里格尔斯 (Tregelles) 主张，库尔顿叙利亚文残篇实质上是希伯来文《马太福音》的译本，年代早于别西大译本 (Peshito)。但埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 已经证明，它源自我们现有的希腊文《马太福音》。⁷⁰

帕皮亚说，各人尽自己的能力“翻译”希伯来文《马太福音》。他无疑是指，在讲希腊语的听众面前公开讲论时使用这部福音书，而不是指若干我们一无所知的书面译本。此外，过去时态（ἠρμήνευσε^*）似乎暗示，他写作时已不再有这种需要；换言之，其间已经出现了权威的希腊文《马太福音》，取代了先前那部可能不够完备的亚兰文福音书。⁷¹因此，帕皮亚间接见证了他那个时代，即第二世纪初期（约公元130年），已有希腊文《马太福音》。无论如何，希腊文《马太福音》甚至在那以前就已公开使用；《十二使徒遗训》 (Didache) 和《巴拿巴书信》中的引文足以证明这一点（这两部著作均写于120年以前，很可能在100年以前）。

希腊文《马太福音》

我们现有的希腊文《马太福音》，并不是从希伯来文逐字紧译的，而带有原创著作的特征。这可从其中地道的希腊词语和措辞看出；这些表达在希伯来语中没有对应的说法，例如那句真正具有古典风格的话：“那些恶人，他必恶狠狠地除灭。”⁷²这也可从引用《旧约》时所作的区别看出：在叙事过程中，作者自由地采用《七十士译本》；但当引文传达弥赛亚预言时，则依照希伯来文，并以庄严的套语引入：“这是要应验”，或“这就应验了”。⁷³

因此，若我们相信古代教会几乎一致的传统，即先有一部希伯来文《马太福音》，那么，我们要么将希腊文《马太福音》归于某位不知名的译者，认为他对原文作了某些自由处理；⁷⁴要么就必须作出看来最有可能的假定：马太本人在一生中不同的时期，先在巴勒斯坦用希伯来文写了他的福音书，后来又用希腊文写成。⁷⁵这样做时，他不会逐字翻译自己的书，而会像其他历史家一样，自由地重述并加以改进。约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 写犹太战争史时也是如此，而今只存希腊文本。希腊文《马太福音》一旦在教会中流通，自然就会取代希伯来文本，尤其如果它更加完备的话。

有人依据叙事中实际存在或被认为存在的不准确之处，反对马太是第一部正典福音书作者的说法。但这些问题充其量也极其微小，而且很容易解释：马太最重视的是基督的话语，他对思想的记忆力很可能胜过对事实的记忆力。⁷⁶

然而，无论我们对第一部正典福音书的确切起源持何种看法，古代教会都普遍接受它为马太的作品。早在公元146年，殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 就在“福音回忆录”中屡次引用我们现有的《马太福音》，虽然引述颇为自由；他的学生他提安 (Tatian) 将四部福音书编成连贯的《四福音合参》 (Diatessaron) 时，它也是其中之一；爱任纽及其后所有教父所使用的《马太福音》，也只有这一部。

§ 81. 马可

注释书

乔治·佩特 (George Petter)（篇幅最大的《马可福音》注释，伦敦，1661年，2卷，对开本）；C. Fr. A. 弗里切 (C. Fr. A. Fritzsche)（《马可福音》 Evangelium Marci，Lips.，1830年）；A. 克洛斯特曼 (A. Klostermann)（《马可福音对于福音史的史料价值》 Das Marcusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evang. Gesch.，哥廷根，1867年）；B. 魏斯 (B. Weiss)（《马可福音及其对观平行经文》 Das Marcusevangelium und seine synopt. Parallelen，柏林，1872年）；迈耶 (Meyer)（魏斯修订第6版，Gött.，1878年）；约瑟夫·A. 亚历山大 (Joseph A. Alexander)（纽约，1858年；伦敦，1866年）；哈维·古德温 (Harvey Goodwin)（伦敦，1860年）；约翰·H. 戈德温 (John H. Godwin)（伦敦，1869年）；雅各·莫里森 (James Morison)（《马可的耶稣基督回忆录》 Mark’s Memoir of Jesus Christ，伦敦及格拉斯哥，1873年；第2版，1876年；第3版，1881年，是最优秀的注释书之一，博学、虔敬而明达）；C. F. 麦克利尔 (C. F. Maclear)（剑桥，1877年）；库克法政牧师 (Canon Cook)（伦敦，1878年）；埃德温·W. 里奇 (Edwin W. Rich)（Philad.，1881年）；马太·B. 里德尔 (Matthew B. Riddle)（纽约，1881年）。

马可的生平

第二位福音书作者，无论在名字上还是在使命上，都兼具希伯来与罗马的成分；他是彼得与保罗之间的纽带，但更是前者的学生和同伴，因此，他的福音书可以恰当地称为彼得的福音书。他原名约翰，或约哈难 (Johanan)（意为耶和华施恩，Gotthold），别名马可 (Mark)（意为小槌）。⁷⁷在他后来的生涯中，这个别名取代了希伯来名字，正如彼得取代西门，保罗取代扫罗一样。这一改变标志着基督教从犹太人转向外邦人。《使徒行传》和各书信屡次提到他。⁷⁸

他的母亲是一位名叫马利亚的妇人，住在耶路撒冷，将自己的住宅提供给基督徒门徒举行敬拜聚会；在那逼迫的危急时期，她这样做无疑冒着极大的危险。彼得出监获释后，便来到这所住宅（公元44年）。这说明了马可与彼得何以如此亲密；他很可能是借着彼得归信的，因此被称为彼得属灵的“儿子”（《彼得前书》5:13）。⁷⁹他可能与基督略有接触；因为在主被卖的那一夜，有一个未具名的“少年人”从客西马尼 (Gethsemane)“丢了麻布，赤身逃走了”，据马可本人的记述，他很可能就是那人（《马可福音》14:51）。若非这件小事对他有特殊意义，是他生命的转折点，他大概不会提起。兰格 (Lange) 颇有巧思地推测，客西马尼园或附近的一所房屋属于他的母亲。

马可作为保罗和巴拿巴的助手（ὑπηρέτης^*），陪同他们进行了第一次伟大的宣教旅程；但他中途离开他们，似乎因工作艰难而灰心，回到耶路撒冷母亲那里。因此，保罗下次出行时不肯带他，巴拿巴却愿意宽容他一时的软弱（《使徒行传》15:38）。这两位善人当时发生了“激烈的争执”，可能与保罗和彼得在安提阿 (Antioch) 那次更为严重的冲突有关（《加拉太书》2:11及后）。保罗出于严肃的责任感；巴拿巴则出于对表弟的亲情。⁸⁰但这种疏远只是暂时的。约十年以后（63年），保罗谈到在罗马的马可，称他为自己少数几个“为上帝的国与我一同作工”的人之一，在他被囚时成为他的“安慰”；又因马可打算前往小亚细亚，便向那里的弟兄推荐他（《歌罗西书》4:10、11；《腓利门书》24）。在最后一封书信中，他嘱咐提摩太带马可同到罗马，因为马可“在服事上于我有益处”（《提摩太后书》4:11）。我们又见他与彼得同在“巴比伦”，无论那是指幼发拉底河畔的巴比伦，还是更可能指罗马（《彼得前书》5:3）。

以上是《新约》中关于他的最后记载。教会传统又补充了两个重要事实：他在罗马作为彼得的传译者，写成了自己的福音书；后来又建立了亚历山大 (Alexandria) 教会。科普特 (Coptic) 牧首自称是他的继承人。关于他在尼禄第八年殉道的传说（这一年代由哲罗姆提出），毫无价值。827年，他的遗骸从埃及迁至威尼斯 (Venice)；威尼斯在总督宫附近的圣马可广场，为他建造了一座宏伟的五圆顶大教堂，并选他为共和国的主保圣徒，以狮子为他的象征。

他与彼得的关系

马可虽不是使徒，却因母亲的住宅，以及他与彼得、保罗、巴拿巴和其他杰出门徒的个人关系，享有最好的机会，能够搜集有关福音历史最可靠的资料。

关于他的福音书，最早的记载来自第二世纪上半叶希拉波立 (Hierapolis) 的帕皮亚。在所搜集的早期传统中，他记述道：“马可作了彼得的传译者（ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος^*），便将自己所记得的一切准确地写下来（ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν^*）；⁸¹不过，他并未按次序（τάξει^*）记述基督所说所行的事。因为他既未听过主，也未跟从过他；只是后来，如我所说，〔跟从了〕彼得。彼得按照〔听众的〕需要施教，而不是将主的讲论作一连贯的叙述。⁸²所以，马可这样把自己记得的细节写下来，并没有犯错；因为他专心留意一件事，就是不遗漏，也不曲解他所听见的任何细节。”⁸³

马可是在何种意义上作彼得的“传译者”呢？不是将一部书面的亚兰文《彼得福音》译成希腊文的人，因为这种亚兰文原本毫无踪迹可寻，而且彼得（从他的书信判断）写的希腊文更好；也不是将彼得的讲论译成拉丁文的人，因为我们不知道马可是否懂得这种语言，即便在罗马，讲希腊语的犹太人和东方人也几乎不需要它；⁸⁴也不是广义上仅仅充当书记或代笔者，将彼得口授的话写下来；而是将他属灵的父亲和老师口传的福音，整理成文并公之于世的人。同样，墨丘利 (Mercury) 被称为众神的传译者，因为他把众神的信息传给凡人。不过，很有可能，彼得在最初的印象尚新之时，曾用自己的本地语言略记一些主要事件；这类简短的回忆录若确实存在，自然会为马可所用。⁸⁵

因此，我们从帕皮亚得知，马可是凭着自己对彼得讲论的回忆，写成他的福音书；彼得的讲论则适应听众当时的需要。这部福音书并不完备（尤其在教训部分，与《马太福音》或《约翰福音》相比），也未严格依照年代次序。

亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 告诉我们，罗马人十分喜爱彼得的宣讲，因此请求他的随从马可将其写下来；彼得对此既未鼓励，也未阻止。其他古代教父强调马可与彼得的亲密关系，并称他的福音书为彼得的福音书。⁸⁶

福音书

这一传统得到了本书的印证：它源于使徒彼得的宣讲，是所有福音书中最简短、就此而言也最不完备的一部，却充满意味深长的细节。它反映了彼得热情冲动的性情、敏捷的举动和有力的行动。在这方面，它惯用的虚词“立刻”极富特色。马可在旁非利亚 (Pamphylia) 的退缩，招致了保罗的责备，与彼得的不认主和反复不定颇为相似；但他也像彼得一样，很快重新振作，愿意陪同保罗进行下一次宣教，并忠心坚持到底。

他的删略和增补，流露出彼得的直接影响。他告诉我们，彼得的家是“西门和安得烈的家”（《马可福音》1:29）。他以这兄弟二人的蒙召（1:16）开始记述基督公开的事工，以传给彼得的信息（16:7）结束这部福音书中无疑为原作的部分，而补篇的结尾几乎就是彼得的原话。⁸⁷他告诉我们，彼得在登山变像时提议搭三座棚，当时却“不知道说什么才好”（9:6）。他极其详尽地记述彼得不认主的经过，并且在福音书作者中，唯独他记载彼得是在火的“亮光里”烤火，以致别人能清楚看见他（14:54），也记载鸡叫了两遍，给了他第二次警告（14:72）。没有人比彼得自己更可能记住并讲述这件事，以此激发谦卑和感恩。

另一方面，马可省略了耶稣赞许彼得的话：“你是磐石，我要把我的教会建造在这磐石上”；却仍记下随后那句责备：“撒但，退我后边去吧！”⁸⁸这位使徒自己曾如此恳切地警告人，不可滥用前一段话来支持教阶权势；他的谦卑，最自然地解释了这一显著的省略。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 说：“彼得很可能对这些事保持缄默；因此马可也没有提及。”⁸⁹

《马可福音》的特征与宗旨

按照古代教会一致的见证——这见证也得到内证的支持——第二部福音书写于罗马，主要以罗马读者为对象，很可能写在彼得去世以前，无论如何都在耶路撒冷被毁以前。⁹⁰

它忠实地记录了彼得的宣讲；这些宣讲，马可必定听过一遍又一遍。它是一篇历史性的讲章，以彼得对罗马军人哥尼流所说的话为经文：“上帝怎样以圣灵和能力膏拿撒勒人耶稣，这都是你们知道的。他周流四方，行善事，医好凡被魔鬼压制的人，因为上帝与他同在。”⁹¹它略去幼年时期的历史，一开始便直入我们主公开的事工，像彼得一样，以约翰的洗礼为起点，以升天为终点。它展现基督充沛的生命活力，显明他是上帝的儿子，是大有能力、施行奇事者；他使人惊异，如同属灵的征服者，以不可抗拒之势带领众人向前。这一面最能打动罗马人尚武的心灵，因为他们生来就是要征服和统治的。教师的形象隐没在王国创建者的形象之中，英雄的因素胜过先知的因素。藉医治被鬼附的人而战胜撒但权势，尤其受到突出描写。这是一部彰显基督神圣能力的福音书。以狮子作为这位福音书作者的象征，并非不合适，因为他把耶稣描绘为犹大支派的狮子。⁹²

马可给我们的是一部记述事实的福音书，马太的则是一部记述神圣圣言的福音书。他记载的讲论少，神迹却多。他用一幅幅简短的生活画面，接连迅速展开我们主短暂的公开生涯。他不停下来解释，也不揭示内在的深意。他着重描写这位奇妙人物给群众留下印象的外在一面。与马太，尤其与约翰相比，他的描写停留于表层，但并不因此就不准确，或较少用处、较不必要。他像马太一样，从神权政治的角度看基督，而路加和约翰则从普世的角度看基督；不过，马太为犹太读者写作，开篇便追溯基督出自大卫王的世系，并且时常提醒人注意预言的应验；马可则为外邦人写作，以具有独立位格的“上帝的儿子”为起点。⁹³他很少引用预言；另一方面，他却为罗马读者翻译亚兰语词句，解释犹太人的习俗和观念。⁹⁴他展现上帝儿子的大能，并期待读者顺服他的权柄。

有两个神迹是他独有的记载：一个是在低加坡里 (Decapolis) 医治聋哑的人，百姓“分外希奇”，惊叹说：“他所做的事都好，他连聋子也叫他们听见，哑巴也叫他们说话”（《马可福音》7:31–37）。另一个神迹是渐次医治的显著实例，即在伯赛大 (Bethsaida) 医治瞎子；基督第一次摸他，他看见周围的人走动，却模糊不清，好像树木；第二次按手在他眼睛上以后，他便“样样都看得清楚了”（8:22–26）。马可略去了一些重要的比喻，却独自记下那饶有意味的比喻：种子暗暗生长，先发苗，后长穗，再后穗上结成饱满的子粒（4:26–29）。

兰格 (Lange) 博士首先指出了一个有趣的特色：马可着重描写那些“有节奏地穿插于基督所取得的几次重大胜利之间”的停顿与休息时期。他从拿撒勒隐居之处出来；他公开生涯中每一次新的进展，都以退隐为先导，而每一次退隐之后，又有新的、更大的胜利。默想中的安息与充满活力的行动，形成鲜明的对照；这也揭示了他那压倒一切的力量，其隐秘源泉在于与上帝相交、与自己相处，从而解释了这种力量所产生的效果。因此，我们看到，他受洗之后，在加利利传道以前，退到犹太的旷野（1:12）；又退到船上（3:7）；退到加利利湖东岸的旷野（6:31）；退到山上（6:46）；退到推罗和西顿的境内（7:24）；退到低加坡里（7:31）；退到高山上（9:2）；退到伯大尼（11:1）；退到客西马尼（14:34）；复活以前安息在坟墓里；以及离开世界，又在门徒所传福音的胜利中重新显现。“主的升天构成他最后一次退隐，此后将是他最终的出击和完全的胜利。”⁹⁵

教义立场

马可没有鲜明独特的教义类型，而是具有大公性、爱好和平、不属任何宗派，对使徒教会内部的党派问题保持中立。但这并非出于算计，也不是有意抹平、调和已有的分歧。⁹⁶马可只是呈现基督教本身的原始形态，即割礼争议爆发以前的形态；那场争议导致了教会建立二十年以后在耶路撒冷召开的使徒会议。他的福音书具有彼得的特色，却不反对保罗；具有保罗的特色，却不反对彼得。它的教义基调与《使徒行传》中彼得的讲道相同。它完全着眼于实践，所宣讲的是基督教，而非神学。

其他福音书也是如此，不过有所不同：马太特别面向犹太读者，路加特别面向外邦读者；两人都在圣灵引导下，按各自独特的恩赐和宗旨，相应地选取材料，却不改变事实，也不给事实涂上色彩。马可恰当地处在两者之间，正如彼得处在雅各与保罗之间一样。

文体

马可的文体不合古典规范，不够典雅，带有地方色彩，质朴无华，词汇贫乏而多重复，却又独具一格、清新如画，并因饶有趣味的笔触和闪光而生动活泼。⁹⁷

他不谙修辞之术，也不擅长文章写作，却是专心的聆听者、细致的观察者和实际事件的忠实记录者。他的语言带有浓厚的希伯来语色彩，常用希伯来式的“和”，却很少用表示论证的“因为”。他插入若干拉丁语词，不过其中大多数也见于马太、路加和《塔木德》(Talmud)。⁹⁸他使用“随即”或“立刻”这个虚词，比其他福音书作者合起来还多。⁹⁹这是他偏爱的字眼，很好地表达了他那急切的步伐，以及从一个事件迅速转到另一个事件、从一次胜利迅速转到另一次胜利的叙事方式。他以亚兰语原文引用名称和短语，如“Abba”（阿爸）、“Boanerges”（半尼其）、“Talitha kum”（大利大，古米）、“Corban”（各耳板）、“Ephphathah”（以法大）和“Eloi, Eloi”（以罗伊，以罗伊），并附上希腊语译文。¹⁰⁰他喜欢使用历史现在时，¹⁰¹喜欢直接引语而非间接引语，¹⁰²喜欢富于画面感的分词，¹⁰³也喜欢表示亲昵的指小词。¹⁰⁴他留意重要事件的时间和地点。¹⁰⁵他有一些独特的表达，在《新约》其他地方都找不到。¹⁰⁶

富有特色的细节

马可加入了许多有关人物和事件的细腻色彩与有趣情节，这些必定是他从最初的见证人口中听来的。它们不是想象的润饰，也不是历史家的思考，而是对最初印象的追忆。每一章都有这样的细节。在几乎每一段与马太、路加共有的叙事中，他都增添了一点内容。他留意到，耶稣的话语和神迹，甚至他的出现本身，给百姓和门徒带来极其强烈的敬畏、惊奇、喜乐和欢欣；¹⁰⁷他也留意到群众的举动：他们奔来，簇拥着他，挤向他，要他摸他们、医治他们，以致几乎无处立足，也无暇吃饭。¹⁰⁸有一次，他的亲属甚至打算强行把他从人群中带走。他使人注意我们主属人的情感和激情，描写他如何被怜悯、惊奇、忧伤、怒气和义愤所激动。¹⁰⁹他留意主的姿态、目光和手势，¹¹⁰以及他的睡眠和饥饿。¹¹¹

他告诉我们，耶稣“看着”那富有的少年官，就“爱他”；当那人听见自己必须变卖所有的、来跟从耶稣时，就“变了脸色”。马可——更确切地说是彼得——必定曾注视我们主的眼睛，从他的面容读出他对那人的特别关切；那人虽然自以为义、贪爱世界，却也有一些可爱的品格，离上帝的国不很远。¹¹²

关于在变像山脚下医治那被鬼附、患癫痫者的事，马可比其他对观福音书作者叙述得更详尽，也更富戏剧性的生动感。他补上耶稣与病者父亲之间那段感人的对话，使这父亲软弱而挣扎的信心流露出来，并发出恳求坚强而得胜之信心的迫切祷告：“我信；求你帮助我的不信。”¹¹³我们可以想象，那位承认基督的彼得，是何等热切地领会了这一祷告；他想起自己的软弱和试炼，在宣讲中又曾多少次重复这句话。

所有对观福音书作者都在两个不同的场合，述说基督对小孩子的爱；但唯独马可告诉我们，他“把小孩子抱起来，给他们按手”。¹¹⁴

还有许多其他福音书未载的小细节，本身虽微不足道，却极有意义，因为它们表明叙述者（彼得）是亲眼见证人。例如，耶稣同雅各、约翰进了“西门和安得烈的家”（《马可福音》1:29）；法利赛人“同希律党的人”商议（3:6）；耶稣变像时，衣服洁白如雪，“地上漂布的，没有一个能漂得那样白”（9:3）；瞎子巴底买 (Bartimaeus) 蒙召时，“丢下衣服，跳起来”，来到耶稣那里（10:50）；在橄榄山上，“彼得、雅各、约翰和安得烈暗暗地问他”将要发生的事（13:3）；那五千人“一排一排地坐下，有一百一排的，有五十一排的”（6:40）；替基督背十字架的西门（15:21）是“古利奈人”，也是“亚历山大和鲁孚的父亲”（这二人无疑是众所周知的门徒，或许住在罗马；参《罗马书》16:13）。

我们还可以列出一些马可独有、而又“显露”彼得痕迹的细节：称基督为“木匠”（《马可福音》6:3）；耶利哥的瞎眼乞丐名叫“巴底买”（10:46）；耶稣在船上睡觉所枕的“枕头”（4:38）；春日山坡上的“青草”（4:39）；船上的“一个饼”（8:14）；驴驹“拴在门外街道上”（11:4）；用睚鲁女儿的母语向她说话（5:41）；在客西马尼的祷告中，用双语呼求“Abba，父啊”（14:36；参《罗马书》8:15；《加拉太书》4:6）。

结论

从这些特点自然可以得出结论：《马可福音》远非昔日所认为的那样，是从马太、路加或二者摘录而成的，¹¹⁵而是一部完全独立、具有原创性的著作；不同学派、不同旨趣的批评家所作的细致研究，已经证实了这一点。¹¹⁶在一切主要部分中，它都是对福音历史中人物与事件的鲜活、逼真而可信的记录，出自诚实的老彼得之口，由那位常随他左右的学生执笔。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 在第四世纪便已一语中的，第十九世纪不怀偏见的批评家也证实了他的判断：第二部福音书，彼得是叙述者，马可是执笔者。¹¹⁷

有些人更进一步，主张“彼得的传译者”马可，不过是把老师的一部希伯来文福音书译了出来；¹¹⁸然而，传统虽提到希伯来文的马太，却从不知道有什么希伯来文的彼得；况且，书是以作者命名的，而不是以译者命名的。只要说彼得是宣讲者，马可是记录者和编订者，就已足够。

这一事实对于对观福音书所记基督生平之可靠性有何关系，是不言自明的。它使神话说或传说说毫无立足之地。¹¹⁹

福音书的完整性

本福音书以一段简略的叙述作结（《马可福音》16:9–20），述说复活与升天的奇事，以及基督的使者向一切受造之物传福音时，伴随他们而不断显出的能力。这个结尾大体上具有马可的特色，把福音呈现为一种贯穿世界、改变世界的神圣能力，但其中也有一些独特之处，即：（1）这是关于基督升天的三处明确记载之一（16:19：“他被接到天上”；另外两处是《路加福音》24:51和《使徒行传》1:9–11），并补充说他“坐在上帝的右边”（参《彼得前书》3:22的类似陈述）；（2）着重宣告洗礼对于得救的必要性（“信而受洗的必然得救”），并有一个反面的分句，指出不信（即拒绝福音所提供的救恩）使人被定罪（“不信的必被定罪”）；¹²⁰（3）使徒不相信抹大拉的马利亚所传的消息，直到复活的主亲自向他们显现（《马可福音》16:11–14；不过约翰也暗示了同样的事，《约翰福音》20:8、9，尤其论到多马时，20:25；马太也提到有人疑惑，《马太福音》28:17；参《路加福音》24:37–41）；（4）以权柄应许，必有超自然的能力和神迹伴随信的人（《马可福音》16:17、18）。其中提到五旬节的方言现象 (glossolalia)，并用“说新方言”这一独特名称来称呼它。¹²¹

这段结尾是否出自原作者，争论十分激烈，是经文鉴别学最困难的问题之一。双方的论据几乎同样有力。不过，虽然无法证明这一段属于福音书的原文，以下两点似乎是清楚的：（1）它属于原始传统（正如《约翰福音》第8章中那段有争议的淫妇记载）；（2）马可不可能以《马可福音》16:8（γάρ^*）结束他的福音书，而无意写一个更合宜的结尾。无论结论如何，都不影响这部福音书的性质和可信性。这一段即使并非原作、并非马可所写，其陈述仍可能真实或正确。只要理解得当，其中没有什么不与使徒的教训相符。

关于《马可福音》16:9–20争议结尾的附注

I. 反对其为原作的理由：

两部最古老、最有价值的大写体抄本，即西奈抄本 (Sinaitic，א^*) 和梵蒂冈抄本 (Vatican，B)，都完全没有这一段。诚然，后者在以《马可福音》16:8结束，并写上卷末题记 κατα μαρκον^* 之后，将余下的第三栏留空，空间足以容纳这十二节。伯根 (Burgon) 博士和斯克里夫纳 (Scrivener) 博士十分看重这一事实；但我检查这同一抄本的摹真版时，发现《马太福音》《约翰福音》《使徒行传》《彼得前书》（叶200）、《约翰一书》（叶208）、《犹大书》（叶210）、《罗马书》（叶227）、《以弗所书》（叶262）、《歌罗西书》（叶272）的末尾，都留有从数行至一栏的三分之二或四分之三不等的空白。正如阿博特 (Abbot) 博士于1872年首先指出的，B抄本的旧约部分，在《尼希米记》末尾留有两栏空白，在《多比传》末尾留有一栏半空白。无论如何，这一省略表明，B抄本的抄写者反对收入这一段，或者他所用的更早抄本没有这一段。

我再附上阿博特博士给我的以下私人说明：“亚历山大抄本 (Alexandrian MS.) 在《马可福音》末尾留有一栏又三分之一的空白，在《约翰福音》末尾留有半页，在保罗书信末尾留有整整一页。（可与《马太福音》和《使徒行传》的结尾比较。）这部抄本的旧约部分，尤其应注意《利未记》《以赛亚书》和《耶利米书信》，各卷末尾都留有半页或更多的空白；可与《耶利米书》《巴录书》《耶利米哀歌》比较。《路得记》《撒母耳记下》和《但以理书》的末尾也有类似空白，但这些书卷的末叶，恰好是一叠四张对折纸、亦即一个书帖的末叶。西奈抄本在保罗书信末尾留空两栏有余，并连同随后一整页也留空，尽管接下来的两叶仍属于同一个书帖；《使徒行传》末尾也是如此，留空一栏又三分之二，连同随后一整页；《巴拿巴书》末尾则留空一栏半。这些例子表明，所讨论的现象在很大程度上取决于抄写者一时的兴致；我们不能据此有把握地推断，B抄本的抄写者知道这部福音书还有别的结尾。”

另有一个较短的结尾，无疑是伪作；在L抄本和埃塞俄比亚译本 (Aethiopic version) 的若干部抄本中，它紧接在《马可福音》16:8之后，也见于274号抄本、哈克勒叙利亚译本 (Harclean Syriac) 以及这部福音书最好的科普特文抄本的页边；而在古拉丁译本的k抄本中，它则取代了较长的结尾。详情见韦斯科特与霍特 (Westcott and Hort)，II，Append.（附录），第30、38、44页及下页。

优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆明确说，几乎所有希腊文福音书抄本都没有这一段。安提阿的维克托 (Victor of Antioch) 所用的抄本也没有。此外，教父未加引用的消极证据也不利于这一段，尤其是耶路撒冷的区利罗 (Cyril of Jerusalem)、德尔图良 (Tertullian) 和居普良 (Cyprian) 的情形，因为他们有特别的理由引用它（见韦斯科特与霍特，II，Append.，第30–38页）。不过，哲罗姆的陈述似乎依赖于优西比乌，而且他本人在《武加大译本》(Vulgate) 中也译出了这一段，这些事实削弱了他那项陈述的分量。
代表古拉丁译本非洲文本的重要抄本k没有这一段，而有另一种结尾（与L抄本中的相似）；亚美尼亚译本 (Armenian version) 的一些最佳抄本也没有这一段，而另一些抄本则将它放在通常的卷末题记之后。梵蒂冈图书馆所藏一部尚未刊行的阿拉伯文译本（由希腊文译出）也没有这一段；这部译本同样值得注意，因为它在《提摩太前书》3:16采用 ὅς^* 这一读法。
这一段的开头方式，以及提及抹大拉的马利亚的方式，都使它带有从某个外来来源取作结尾的色彩。它没有记载《马可福音》16:7中应许的应验。它在16:9使用 πρώτῃ σαββάτου^*，而不用16:2中带有希伯来语色彩的 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων^*。其中有许多词语或短语（例如，πορεύομαι^* 使用了三次）不见于《马可福音》其他地方，更使人觉得我们面对的是另一位作者；而且它缺少马可惯有的生动细节。不过，以文体和词汇差异为根据的论证，已经被推得过远，不能视为本身具有决定性。

支持其为原作的论据：

这一段见于大多数大写体抄本，即A C D C G D S，见于所有较晚的大写体抄本（在L中作为次要读文），也见于所有小写体抄本，包括1、33、69等；不过，有一些小写体抄本给它加上星号，或注明较古抄本省略了这一段。因此，优西比乌和哲罗姆的陈述似乎需要加以某些限定。正如伯根博士首先指出的，22号抄本在《马可福音》16:8和16:20之后，都插入了表示一段诵读经课结束的礼仪用语 τέλος^*，而其他福音书末尾却没有这个词。这表明，不同抄本中的《马可福音》有两种结尾。
这一段也见于大多数古译本：意大利古拉丁译本 (Itala)（“k”，即哥伦班 [Columban] 使用的博比奥抄本 [codex Bobbiensis] 除外）、《武加大译本》、库雷顿叙利亚译本 (Curetonian Syriac)（末段）、别西大译本 (Peshito)、菲洛克塞努斯译本 (Philoxenian)、科普特译本 (Coptic)、哥特译本 (Gothic)（首段）和埃塞俄比亚译本；不过，在若干部抄本中，它只出现在伪托的较短结尾之后。这些译本中的意大利古拉丁译本、库雷顿叙利亚译本、别西大叙利亚译本和科普特译本，其年代都早于我们所有的希腊文古抄本；但科普特文的抄本并不早于第十二或第十世纪，也可能像希腊文抄本一样经历过改动；埃塞俄比亚文抄本则全是近代的。古拉丁译本的最佳抄本在这里都有残缺。库雷顿叙利亚译本现存的《马可福音》残篇只有16:17–20，因此我们无法知道16:9–20原是紧接16:8，还是像L抄本中那样出现。不过，阿弗拉哈特 (Aphraates) 引用了这一段。
就已检查的范围而言，现存所有希腊文和叙利亚文的经课集、福音经课集和礼仪经课表，都有这一段；这些书收录了供各教会诵读的圣经经课。伯根博士十分看重它们的见证（第X章），但他高估了它们的古老程度。经课制度无法追溯到第四世纪中叶以前；当时礼仪发生了重大变化。那时，这些有争议的经节已经广泛流传，并被热切地采用，作为合宜的复活与升天经课。
里昂的爱任纽 (Irenaeus of Lyons) 在第二世纪后半叶，远早于优西比乌之时，就明确引用《马可福音》16:19，视之为《马可福音》的一部分（《驳异端》[Adv. Haer.]，III. 10, 6）。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 更早的见证（《护教辞》[Apol.]，I. 45）则不确定。（《使徒宪章》[Apostolic Constitutions] 第viii卷第1章对《马可福音》16:17、18的引用，被错误地归于希波吕托 [Hippolytus]。）马里努斯 (Marinus)、马卡里乌斯·马格尼斯 (Macarius Magnes)（或至少他所引的那位异教作者）、狄迪穆 (Didymus)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom)（??）、伊皮法纽 (Epiphanius)、聂斯托利 (Nestorius)、伪经《彼拉多行传》(Gesta Pilati)、安布罗斯 (Ambrose)、奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 及其他较晚的教父，都引用过这一段。
一个有力的内证来自这一事实：马可不可能有意以 ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ^*（《马可福音》16:8）这几个字结束他的福音书。必定是他自己写下了最后几节，或另一个结尾，而在本书大量传抄以前，这个结尾便意外失落了；或者，他因意外而未能完成本书，后来由一位友人根据口传或某种书面资料补上了结尾。

鉴于这些事实，批评家和释经家的意见分歧甚大。为这段经文的真实性辩护的，有西蒙 (Simon)、米尔 (Mill)、本格尔 (Bengel)、施托尔 (Storr)、马泰伊 (Matthaei)、胡格 (Hug)、施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)、德韦特 (De Wette)、布利克 (Bleek)、奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、兰格 (Lange)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、布罗德斯 (Broadus)（《浸信会季刊》[Bapt. Quarterly]，费城 [Philad.]，1869年）、伯根 (Burgon)（1871年）、斯克里夫纳 (Scrivener)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、麦克莱伦 (McClellan)、库克 (Cook)、莫里森 (Morison)（1882年）。否定或质疑它的，有校勘本编者格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach)、拉赫曼 (Lachmann)、蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)、特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、韦斯科特与霍特 (Westcott and Hort)（不过，他们都将它保留在正文中，或加括号，或不加括号），以及弗里切 (Fritzsche)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、凯姆 (Keim)、朔尔滕 (Scholten)、克洛斯特曼 (Klostermann)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯 (Weiss)、诺顿 (Norton)、戴维森 (Davidson) 等批评家和注释家。然而，这些反对者中，有些人虽否认这一段出于马可之手，却认为其内容属于使徒传统的一部分。米歇尔森 (Michelsen) 只舍弃16:9–14，而保留16:15–20。埃瓦尔德和霍尔茨曼根据16:9、10及16–20推想原来的结尾；福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 则从所有对观福音书中取材，构造了一个结尾。

这一问题的解决办法。全都不过是推测；在这件事上，不可能得到确定的结论。

马可本人在一个较晚的版本中补上了这一段；该版本也许是在亚历山大 (Alexandria) 发行的。他在罗马写到16:8时，恰因彼得被囚并殉道，或因疾病，或因某种意外而中断。在他能够完成本书以前，未完成的抄本已流传出去。米迦勒斯 (Michaelis)、胡格等人持此说。
马可原来的结尾因某种意外而失落，极可能是从亲笔原稿中失落的（它也许独占一叶），而现有的这一段，是第二世纪一位匿名编者或汇集者补上的。格里斯巴赫、舒尔特斯 (Schulthess)、戴维·舒尔茨 (David Schulz) 持此说。
这一段是路加写的。希齐希 (Hitzig) 持此说（《约翰·马可》[Johannes Marcus]，第187页）。
戈代 (Godet)（《路加福音注释》[Com. on Luke]，英译本，第8及513页）修正了这一假说，认为是第三者补写了结尾，一部分取自其间已经问世的《路加福音》，另一部分（《马可福音》16:17、18）则取自别的资料。他推想，马可因64年尼禄逼迫突然爆发而中断写作，仓促逃离首都，留下尚未完成的福音书；后来《路加福音》问世，这部福音书才得以补全。戈代以此解释这一事实：直到《马可福音》16:8，都没有路加影响马可的迹象，而这种影响在结尾一段却显而易见。
这是路加所使用的某一篇现已失传的福音残篇的结尾（《路加福音》1:1），由最后的编订者附于《马可福音》之后。埃瓦尔德持此说。
这一段出于马可之手，却在第三世纪被某个抄写者出于圣职等级制的偏见而故意删去，因为它对复活以后的使徒作了不利的描述，以致主“责备他们不信，心里刚硬”（《马可福音》16:14）。兰格持此说（《耶稣传》[Leben Jesu]，I. 166）。不大可能。
这一段是真实的，但在某一部珍贵抄本中被删去，是由于误解了小写体抄本中常见于《马可福音》16:8之后的 τέλος^* 一词。伯根持此说。他说（《季评》[Quarterly Review]，1881年10月）：“按照西方的次序，圣马可居于最后。从最早的时期起，人们便惯于在16:8之后写上 τέλος^*（结束），表示一段著名的教会经课到这里结束。只要设想一部极古老的原型抄本，其最后一叶始于16:9，而这一叶已经失落，——一切便都明白了。一个忠实的抄写者，就必然会像B和a所做的那样，在《马可福音》16:8结束这部福音书。”但是，这种礼仪标记的年代还不够古老，无法解释a、B以及优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 所用抄本中的省略；而诵读的经课若以 γάρ^* 结束，也会像福音书本身一样突兀。
这一段不能声称具有任何使徒权威；但它无疑建立在使徒时期的某种传统之上。其作者和确切年代必定仍不可知，不过，它显然早于正典福音书普遍被接纳之时；因为它虽然与各卷福音书都有相接之处，却丝毫没有试图调和它们对事件经过的不同叙述。霍特博士持此说（II.，Appendix，第51页）。阿尔福德座堂主任牧师也持类似看法。

要了解全面的资料，可参看蒂申多夫和特雷格尔斯的校勘资料、魏斯关于《马可福音》的专著（Das Marcusevang.，第512–515页），尤其是韦斯科特与霍特第二卷中详尽的讨论（Append.，第29–51页）。为其真实性所作最详尽的辩护，出自伯根座堂主任牧师：《为〈圣马可福音〉最后十二节辩护，驳斥近来的批评异议并确立其真实性》(The Last Twelve Verses o f the Gospel according to S. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objections and Established)（牛津及伦敦 [Oxford and Lond.]，1871年，334页）。这是一部极博学的著作，可惜语气过于自信，又无理地敌视最古老的大写体抄本（a和B）以及最有功绩的文本批评家（拉赫曼、蒂申多夫、特雷格尔斯），有损其价值。其他有力的辩护，可见斯克里夫纳博士（《新约文本批评导论》[Introd. to the Criticism of the New Test.]，第3版，1883年，第583–590页）、莫里森博士（《马可福音注释》[Com. on Mark]，第446页及第463页及后）和库克法政牧师（《议长圣经注释》中的《马可福音注释》[Speaker’s Com. on Mark]，第301–308页）。

拉赫曼依照呈现第四世纪所见文本的原则，收入了这一有争议的段落，但并不认为它是真实的（见他发表于1830年《研究与评论》[Studien und Kritiken] 的文章，第843页）。蒂申多夫和特雷格尔斯将这十二节另行列出。阿尔福德将它们置于单括号内，韦斯科特与霍特则置于双括号内，视为早期插入的文字；1881年《修订译本》保留了它们，附有旁注，并在《马可福音》16:8和9之间留出空白。伯根座堂主任牧师（《季评》[Quarterly Rev.]，1881年10月）认为修订本的这条旁注（它不过陈述了一个公认的事实）是“所有污点中最严重的一个”，并得意地请校勘本编者和修订者去看他那部“长达300余页的专论；出于再好不过的理由，至今无人作答”。他向我们保证，他已在其中“证明”，《马可福音》最后十二节“与任何可以举出的其他经节一样可信”。梵蒂冈 (Vatican) 那位不会错误的代言者，似乎在奇切斯特 (Chichester) 遇上了一位强劲的对手；然而，二者在天使颂歌（《路加福音》2:14）的正确读文上，却有不可调和的冲突：教皇随着《武加大译本》吟唱属格（εὐδοκίας^*，bonae voluntatis，即“善意的”），而这位座堂主任牧师却在同一篇文章中，斥之为“对圣经真理的严重歪曲”，认为支持主格（εὐδοκία^*）的证据“绝对具有决定性”，仿佛a* A B D、爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、俄利根 (Origen)（拉丁文）、哲罗姆、所有拉丁文抄本以及拉丁文《荣耀归于至高者》(Gloria in Excelsis) 的联合见证，与他的判断或偏好相比，全都不足为道。

§ 82. 路加

*Lucas, Evangelii el medicinae munera pandens;

Artibus hinc, illinc religione, valet:*

*路加施展福音与医术的职分；

一面以技艺，一面以信仰，显出力量。*

*Utilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri;

Utilior, per quem tot didicere mori!"*

*那使众多病人得活的劳作，固然有益；

那使众人学会面对死亡的劳作，更为有益！*

批评与传记研究

施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)：《论路加的著作》(Ueber die Schriften des Lukas)。柏林 (Berlin)，1817年。重印于其《全集》(Sämmtliche Werke) 第2卷，柏林，1836年（第1–220页）。瑟尔沃尔 (Thirlwall) 主教译成英文，伦敦，1825年。

詹姆斯·史密斯 (James Smith)（乔丹希尔 [Jordanhill] 人，卒于1867年）：《圣路加的生平与著作论》(Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke)，附于其《圣保罗的航行与船难》(Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul)（1848年）卷首；第4版，由沃尔特·E. 史密斯 (Walter E. Smith) 修订，伦敦，1880年（293页）。这是一部极重要的专著，尤其关乎《使徒行传》的历史准确性与可信性，作者既是航海专家，也是一位杰出的学者。

E. 勒南 (E. Renan)：《福音书》(Les Évangiles)。巴黎 (Paris)，1877年。第XIX章，第435–448页。

Th. 凯姆 (Th. Keim)：《原始基督教论集》(Aus dem Urchristenthum)。苏黎世 (Zürich)，1878年。其中《新约中的约瑟夫斯》(Josephus im N. T.)，第1–27页，试图证明路加在《路加福音》3:1、2的年代叙述中使用了约瑟夫斯的著作，但未能成功。凯姆假定第三卷福音书写于约瑟夫斯的《犹太战争》之后（约75–78年），甚至可能在其《犹太古史》之后（公元94年）；不过，他在《耶稣史》(Geschichte Jesu)（I. 71）中，却将《路加福音》的写作定于公元90年。

朔尔滕 (Scholten)：《保罗派的福音书》(Das Paulinische Evangelium)，雷德彭宁 (Redepenning) 从荷兰文译出。埃尔伯费尔德 (Elberf.)，1881年。

关于《路加福音》真实性的古代见证，见查特里斯 (Charteris)（基尔希霍费尔 [Kirchhofer]）：《正典性》(Canonicity)，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1880年，第154–166页。

关于路加与马吉安 (Marcion) 的关系，尤其参看福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)：《马吉安的福音书》(Das Evangelium Marcions)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1852年；以及桑迪 (Sanday)：《第二世纪的福音书》(The Gospels in the Second Century)，伦敦，1876年（另见他在1875年6月《双周评论》[Fortnightly Review] 上的文章）。

释经著作

古代注释有：俄利根 (Origen)（存哲罗姆的拉丁译本，另有少量希腊文残篇）、优西比乌 (Eusebius)（残篇）、亚历山大的区利罗 (Cyril of Alexandria)（叙利亚译本并附译文，由史密斯 [Smith] 座堂主任牧师编辑，牛津 [Oxf.]，1858及1859年）、欧提米乌斯·齐加贝努斯 (Euthymius Zigabenus)、狄奥菲拉克特 (Theophylact)。——近代注释有：博尔内曼 (Bornemann)（《路加福音笺注》[Scholia in Luc. Ev.]，1830年）、德韦特 (De Wette)（《马可与路加》[Mark and Luke]，第3版，1846年）、迈耶 (Meyer)（《马可与路加》[Mark and Luke]，第6版，由B. 魏斯 [B. Weiss] 修订，1878年）、詹姆斯·汤姆森 (James Thomson)（爱丁堡，1851年，3卷）、J. J. 范奥斯特泽 (J. J. Van Oosterzee)（收入兰格的注释，第3版，1867年；英文本由沙弗 [Schaff] 和斯塔巴克 [Starbuck] 编辑，纽约 [N. Y.]，1866年）、Fr. 戈代 (Fr. Godet)（最佳注释之一，法文第2版，1870年；沙尔德斯 [Shalders] 和屈赞 [Cusin] 英译，爱丁堡，1875年，2卷；纽约重印，1881年）、W. B. 琼斯 (W. B. Jones) 主教（收入《议长圣经注释》[Speaker’s Com.]，伦敦及纽约，1878年）、E. H. 普兰普特里 (E. H. Plumptre)（收入埃利科特 [Ellicott] 主教的《英语读者圣经注释》[Com. for English Readers]，伦敦，1879年）、弗雷德里希·W. 法勒 (Frederich W. Farrar)（剑桥 [Cambridge]，1880年）、马修·B. 里德尔 (Matthew B. Riddle)（1882年）。

路加的生平

正如马可与彼得不可分离，路加与保罗也是如此。在这两种关系中，使徒与历史家或同工之间，都有一种预先命定的契合与意气相投。在教会伟大的形成时期，我们也见到这种圣洁而有益的友谊，宗教改革时期尤其如此，例如路德 (Luther) 与梅兰希通 (Melanchthon)、慈运理 (Zwingli) 与厄科兰帕迪乌斯 (Oecolampadius)、加尔文 (Calvin) 与贝扎 (Beza)、克兰麦 (Cranmer)、拉蒂默 (Latimer) 与里德利 (Ridley)；稍后的时期，则有卫斯理 (Wesley) 兄弟与怀特菲尔德 (Whitefield)。马可是这位加利利渔夫的希伯来裔罗马“传译者”，他给了我们一卷最简短、最生动，却在文辞与文学性上最逊色的福音书；路加则是受过教育的希腊人，是“亲爱的医生”，也是大数的扫罗忠实的旅伴；他写成了最长、最具文学性的福音书，并把它与奥古斯都 (Augustus) 及其继承者统治时期世俗历史中的重大事件联系起来。如果古人称前者为彼得的福音书，那么后者也可以在较为间接的意义上称为保罗的福音书，因为它在精神上与这位外邦人使徒的教导一致。他们关于设立主餐的记载，甚至在措辞上也有相同之处，表明二者取自同一资料来源。二人无疑经常交谈，但彼此都没有提及对方的著作；这一点有助于证明，这些著作是在同一时期，或相距不远的时期，各自独立写成的。¹²²

路加在这两卷书中从未提及自己的名字；古代一致公认这两卷书出于他的手笔，而两书也具有同一作者所写的一切特征。他却谦逊地隐藏在《使徒行传》很大一部分所用的“我们”之中；这卷书不过是第三卷福音书的续篇。¹²³保罗在被囚期间，三次以尊重而亲切的口吻提到他，称他为“亲爱的医生”（《歌罗西书》4:14），列他为自己的“同工”之一（《腓利门书》24），并称他为最忠实的朋友，在朋友们相继离弃自己之时，仍留在身边（《提摩太后书》4:11）。医生这一职业虽然往往由较有才干的奴隶从事，却意味着他受过一定程度的教育，也解释了他何以能准确使用医学术语、描述疾病。¹²⁴这职业使他得以进入许多有社会地位的家庭，尤其在医生稀少的东方。它也使他在保罗身体软弱、劳苦疲惫之时，更能给予帮助。¹²⁵

他生来是外邦人，¹²⁶不过后来可能成了一名“门口的归信者”。他的国籍和早年经历都不为人知。他很可能是叙利亚 (Syria) 的安提阿 (Antioch) 人，也是这座外邦基督教母会中最早的归信者之一。¹²⁷下列事实印证了这一推测：他向我们提供了许多安提阿教会的消息（《使徒行传》11:19–30；13:1–3；15:1–3、22–35），把“基督徒”这一名称的起源追溯到这座城（11:19），并且在列举耶路撒冷的七位执事时，特意告诉我们尼哥拉是安提阿人（《使徒行传》6:5），却未提及其他任何人的籍贯。¹²⁸

我们初次见到路加，是他在特罗亚 (Troas) 作保罗的同伴之时。保罗听到了马其顿 (Macedonia) 的呼声：“请你过来帮助我们”，正要在第二次伟大的宣教旅程中，把福音传到希腊。从这个重要时刻起，路加便使用第一人称复数：“他［保罗］既看见这异象，我们随即想要往马其顿去，以为上帝召我们传福音给那里的人听”（《使徒行传》16:10）。他陪保罗到了腓立比 (Philippi)；保罗和西拉离开那里前往哥林多之后（公元51年），他似乎留了下来，照管这初建的教会；因为“我们”突然换成了“他们”（17:1）。七年后（公元58年），使徒最后一次前往耶路撒冷，途经腓立比，路加又与他会合，随后在特罗亚停留了一周（《使徒行传》20:5、6）；因为从此刻起，路加在叙述中又恢复使用“我们”。在耶路撒冷，以及在凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 的两年间，他都与保罗同在，或在他附近；他陪同保罗经历了前往罗马的危险航程，并对此作了极其准确的记述；他一直留在保罗身边，直到保罗第一次在罗马被囚的时期结束，也就在这里结束了自己的记载（公元63年）。不过，在保罗被囚的四年间，他可能曾因宣教工作而暂时离开。公元63年以后，保罗打算访问西班牙和东方，路加是否与他同行，我们并不知道。最后一次提到他，是保罗临近殉道时所说的话：“独有路加在我这里”（《提摩太后书》4:11）。

圣经最后让我们见到的路加，正值大有用处之时，身处最好的同伴之中，与保罗一同在世界的都城传扬福音。

使徒之后的传统，在健全而确定的语调上总是远逊于新约，大多含糊不清，时常自相矛盾，从不可靠。它又说，路加活到八十四岁，曾在数国劳苦，是一位画家，画过耶稣、童贞女和使徒们的肖像，最后在希腊的埃莱亚 (Elaea) 被钉在一棵橄榄树上。他真实的或被认为是他的遗骸，连同使徒安得烈的遗骸，从亚该亚 (Achaia) 的帕特雷 (Patrae) 被迁到君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 的使徒教堂。¹²⁹

教会的象征诗赋以献祭的牛为他的标志；不过，人的象征更为合适，因为他的福音书堪称最典型的人子的福音书。

资料来源

路加在序言中亲自承认，他并非福音历史的目击者，¹³⁰他的资料来自最早一批门徒的口述，以及当时已经流传的许多片断文献。他依据所听所读写成福音书，依据所见所闻写成《使徒行传》。他将基督教的起源“从起头都详细考察了”。

他拥有最优越的机会。他访问了耶路撒冷与罗马之间主要的使徒教会，并与这些教会的创立者和领袖亲自接触。他在安提阿见过彼得、马可和巴拿巴，在耶路撒冷见过雅各及其长老们（保罗最后一次访问时），在凯撒利亚见过腓利及其女儿们，也见过希腊和罗马早期的归信者；此外，他还能利用保罗本人借启示所得，或在与其他使徒及早期门徒亲自交往中收集的一切资料。有关耶稣婴孩时期历史的资料，出自犹太基督徒，并以亚兰语传述（因此《路加福音》第1–2章带有浓厚的希伯来语色彩）；他有关基督在撒马利亚活动的资料，可能来自腓利，腓利曾在那里作传福音的工作，后来又在凯撒利亚劳苦。但像路加这样具有历史直觉、认真尽责的人，也必会亲自访问加利利那些因基督的传道而名垂不朽的地方。从耶路撒冷或凯撒利亚出发，三四天之内便可走遍这些地方。

路加是否也使用了另外两卷对观福音书中的一卷或两卷，这个问题前节已经讨论过。他不大可能把这两卷书包括在序言所提及的那些显然只是片断的资料之内。可以确定，他并不知道我们现有的希腊文《马太福音》；至于他是否使用过一卷现已失传的希伯来文《马太福音》及《马可福音》，优秀学者之间的意见仍有分歧。不过，他与马可的相似之处，虽然在某些部分十分显著，¹³¹却并不是不能同样、甚至更好地用先前的口传传统或目击者的回忆录来解释；尤其当我们考虑到，这些相似之处又被一些无法解释的差异和遗漏所抵消时，就更是如此。诉诸一卷希伯来文或希腊文的原始《马可福音》(proto-Mark)，也无助于解决问题，因为我们对它一无所知。

路加有大量独有而极其宝贵的材料，足以证明他的独立性及其资料来源的多样性。他大大增进了我们对救主的认识，并在详尽、准确和年代次序这三方面胜过马太和马可；他在序言中十分谦逊地声称，这三点正是他力求达到的目标。¹³²有时，他把基督的一句话放在叙述中适当的位置，并将它与某一特定场合联系起来，使这句话显得格外贴切而优美。但也有一些例外之处，马太记得更详尽，马可则更合乎年代次序。想到这些事件发生之后已经过去了约三十年，我们便不必诧异，有些事迹和话语被错置了位置，而路加虽有一片诚挚热忱，也未能始终恢复原来的次序。

路加独有的段落与其余部分相互一致。它们与伪经中的奇谈和寓言毫无关系，甚至与使徒时期以后正统教会的传统和传说也毫无关系，却与其他福音书及书信中所呈现的基督形象完全和谐。他记载的准确性经受了最严厉的检验，尤其在《使徒行传》中，他经常提到世俗统治者和事件；虽然少数年代问题，例如居里扭 (Quirinius) 户口调查的问题，尚未得到满意的解决，但总的说来，即使在细微之处，他也已被证明是一位忠实、可靠而见闻广博的历史家。

他是基督教会史真正的鼻祖；他对史料的研究、认真求实的准确态度、谦逊，以及教导人并坚固人在真理中的崇高目的，使他成为极值得效法的典范。

献书对象与写作目的

第三卷福音书与《使徒行传》一样，都是献给一位名叫提阿非罗 (Theophilus，即“上帝之友”) 的人。他是一位有社会地位的人，也许在政府任职，这可从“尊贵的”或“最尊贵的”这一称号看出来。¹³³他或已归信，或至少是一位正预备加入教会的慕道者，并愿意作这两卷书的支持者和赞助人。把书献给君王和富有的文学爱好者，这种习俗从前极为普遍，至今也未消失。至于他的族属和居所，我们只能推测，提阿非罗是安提阿的希腊人；路加自己很可能也是安提阿人，或许早已作为他所释放的奴隶或他的医生而认识他。伪克莱门文献《认信录》(Recognitions) 提到安提阿有一位同名的贵族，由彼得引领归信，并把自己的府邸改作教堂和使徒的住所。¹³⁴

路加的目的是要坚固提阿非罗，并借着他坚固所有读者，使他们坚守他已经领受口头教导的信仰，并使他确信，基督教所依据的事实具有无可辩驳的确实性。¹³⁵

路加是为外邦基督徒，尤其是希腊人写作，正如马太为犹太人、马可为罗马人、约翰为不分国籍而信仰成熟的信徒写作。他为外邦读者简略解释了巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 各城镇的位置，如拿撒勒、迦百农、亚利马太，以及橄榄山和以马忤斯与耶路撒冷的距离。¹³⁶他不像马太那样回顾过去，指出古代预言的应验，以证明拿撒勒人耶稣就是所应许的弥赛亚；他却以普世的眼光来看基督，视他为全人类的救主，为每一颗人心愿望的成全者。他把基督与奥古斯都 (Augustus) 广大帝国中世俗历史的事件联系起来，又把基督的家谱追溯到亚当，将他与全人类联系起来。

这些特点适合一般的外邦读者，无论罗马人还是希腊人。但路加长期居住在希腊，而古代传统又说他在那里劳苦并去世，因此，他心中主要想到的是该国读者这一看法，就更有根据。根据哲罗姆 (Jerome) 所说，这卷福音书写成（完成）于亚该亚和彼奥提亚 (Boeotia)。整卷书无疑极其适合希腊人的趣味。它以一篇具有古典结构的历史序言，一开始便吸引了趣味高雅的希腊听众；这篇序言与希罗多德 (Herodotus) 和修昔底德 (Thucydides) 的序言相似。将它们作一比较，不无趣味。

路加开篇说：“提阿非罗大人哪，既然有好些人提笔作书，述说在我们中间已经成就的事，照着从起初亲眼看见、又传这道的人交给我们的，我也将一切事从起头都详细考察了，就定意按着次序写给你，使你知道所学之事的确实。”

希罗多德说：“以下是哈利卡纳苏斯 (Halicarnassus) 人希罗多德的研究，他将其公之于世，为要使往昔人类事迹的记忆不致湮没，使希腊人和蛮族所行伟大而奇妙的事，获得应有的荣耀；同时也要记下他们彼此争战的缘由。”

修昔底德说：“雅典人修昔底德撰写了伯罗奔尼撒人 (Peloponnesians) 与雅典人彼此交战的历史。他们初次拿起武器时，他便开始写作，因为他相信这场战争将是伟大的，比以往任何战争都更值得纪念。他这样判断，是因为当时双方国家的军力都已达到鼎盛，而他看见其余希腊人不是已经支持某一方，就是打算支持其中一方。从来没有一场动乱像这次这样深刻地震撼希腊；许多蛮族也卷入其中，甚至可以说，它影响了整个世界。”（乔伊特 [Jowett] 译。）

这些序言同样以简洁、雅致和得体见长，却有一个鲜明的区别：福音书作者谦逊地隐去自己的姓名，纯为真理的缘故，为全人类灵性的福祉，写下和平福音的记录；而那些伟大的异教历史家却受爱慕声名之心的驱使，旨在使希腊人与蛮族之间毁灭性的战争与仇争永垂不朽。

《路加福音》的内容

在一篇史学序言之后，路加首先根据希伯来文资料，向我们叙述施洗约翰和耶稣诞生及婴孩时期的历史，并记载救主少年时期的一件事（《路加福音》第1、2章）。随后，他按时间次序展开公开传道的历史，从在约旦河受洗，直到复活与升天。我们只须指出那些不见于其他福音书的事实与讲论；它们在主一生的开端、中段和末尾，补全了符类福音的历史。¹³⁷

路加补充了以下各部分：

I. 在约翰和基督婴孩时期的历史中：

主的使者在圣殿中向撒迦利亚显现，宣告约翰将要诞生，《路加福音》1:5–25。

向童贞女马利亚宣告基督将要诞生，1:26–38。

童贞女马利亚探访以利沙伯；以利沙伯的问安，1:39–45。

童贞女马利亚的《尊主颂》（Magnificat），1:46–56。

施洗约翰的诞生，1:57–66。

撒迦利亚的《颂赞歌》（Benedictus），1:67–80。

耶稣在伯利恒诞生，2:1–7。

天使向伯利恒的牧羊人显现，以及“至高之处荣耀颂”（Gloria in excelsis），2:8–20。

耶稣受割礼，并被带到圣殿献给主，2:21–38。

耶稣十二岁时前往耶路撒冷守逾越节，并在圣殿中与犹太教师交谈，2:41–52。

此外，还须加上从亚伯拉罕上溯至亚当的基督家谱；马太则以相反的次序，从亚伯拉罕开始，其平行部分有若干差异，表明二者彼此独立，《路加福音》3:23–38；比较《马太福音》1:1–17。

在主公开生活的历史中，有一整组重要的事件、讲论和轶事，发生于不同的时期，但大多发生在他从迦百农经撒马利亚和比利亚（Peraea），迂回前往耶路撒冷的旅途中（9:51–18:14）。这一部分包括——

以下神迹与事迹：

神奇的捕鱼，5:4–11。

使拿因城寡妇的儿子复活，7:11–18。

赦免那在耶稣脚前哭泣的有罪女人，7:36–50。

几位记有姓名的虔诚妇女供给基督所需，8:2、3。

在撒马利亚的一个村庄责备雷子，9:51–56。

差遣并训诲七十人，10:1–6。

在马大和马利亚家中受接待；不可少的只有一件，10:38–42。

那高声说“怀你胎的有福了”的女人，11:27。

患水臌的人，14:1–6。

十个长大麻风的人，17:11–19。

探访撒该，19:1–10。

耶稣为耶路撒冷哀哭，19:41–44。

彼得受筛，22:31、32。

医治马勒古，22:50、51。

独有的比喻：

两个欠债的人，7:41–43。

好撒马利亚人，10:25–37。

恳求不休的朋友，11:5–8。

无知的财主，12:16–21。

不结果子的无花果树，13:6–9。

失落的德拉克马银币（Drachma），15:8–10。

浪子，15:11–32。

不义的管家，16:1–13。

财主（Dives）与拉撒路，16:19–31。

恳求不休的寡妇和不义的官，18:1–8。

法利赛人与税吏，18:10–14。

十锭银子的比喻，19:11–28（不可与《马太福音》25:14–30中按才受托的比喻视为同一个）。

在钉十字架与复活的历史中

妇女们在前往十字架的路上哀哭，《路加福音》23:27–30。

基督为杀害他的人祷告，23:3。

他与悔改的罪犯交谈，并应许他在乐园中有一席之地，23:39–43。

复活的主在往以马忤斯的路上向两个门徒显现，24:13–25；《马可福音》那段有争议的结尾也曾简略提及，16:12、13。

升天的记载，《路加福音》24:50–53；比较《马可福音》16:19、20；《使徒行传》1:3–12。

《路加福音》的特色

第三卷福音书是向全人类宣告白白救恩的福音书。¹³⁸这与保罗教义体系中的两个要点相应：救恩的无偿性与普世性。

它尤其是一卷宣告本乎恩、借着信而得的白白救恩的福音书。它的宗旨是：基督来是要拯救罪人。“救主”与“救恩”是其中最突出的观念。¹³⁹马利亚在等候儿子降生时，以神她的“救主”为乐（《路加福音》1:47）；天使向伯利恒的牧羊人宣告“关乎万民的大喜的信息”（2:10），就是耶稣降生，作全人类的“救主”（而不仅是犹太人的基督）。全书始终将他描绘为罪人慈悲的朋友、病人的医治者、伤心者的安慰者、迷羊的牧人。路加独有的比喻——浪子、失落的钱币、圣殿中的税吏、好撒马利亚人——彰显了保罗在书信中如此充分阐述的伟大真理。法利赛人与税吏的比喻，将自义连根拔起，并成为因信称义教义的基础。瘫子和那有罪的女人，都是单凭信而蒙赦免。只有路加记述基督在十字架上为杀害他的人祷告，以及向悔改的强盗所作的乐园应许；他又以一幅升天救主举手祝福门徒的图景结束全书。

其他福音书作者并未忽略基督的这一面；没有什么比《马太福音》第11章中他向罪人发出的邀请，或《约翰福音》中他向门徒所作的告别，更为甘甜、更能给人安慰；但路加以特别的喜悦反复描写这一面。他所描绘的是 Christus Salvator（施行拯救的基督）和 Christus Consolator（赐人安慰的基督）。

它是宣告普世救恩的福音书。它尤其是为外邦人而写的福音书。因此，基督的家谱不只追溯到亚伯拉罕（如《马太福音》），更追溯到亚当，即上帝的儿子、全人类的始祖（《路加福音》3:38）。基督是从天而来的第二个亚当，是蒙救赎人类的代表性元首——保罗进一步阐发了这一观念。西面迎接婴孩救主，称他为“照亮外邦人的启示之光，又是他民以色列的荣耀”（2:32）。施洗约翰引用以赛亚关于旷野声音的预言（《以赛亚书》第40章）时，又加上这样的话（出自《以赛亚书》52:10）：“凡有血气的，都要见上帝的救恩”（《路加福音》3:6）。唯有路加记载差遣七十个门徒的事，他们代表外邦各国，正如十二使徒代表以色列十二支派一样。唯有他提及以利亚奉差遣前往撒勒法（Sarepta）的异教寡妇那里，以及以利沙洁净叙利亚人乃缦的事（4:26、27）。他将那患大麻风的撒马利亚人的感恩，与九个患大麻风的犹太人的忘恩作了对照（17:12–18）。他选录的讲论和比喻，彰显了上帝对撒马利亚人和外邦人的怜悯。¹⁴⁰然而，这里并无矛盾，因为那些彰显基督怜悯外邦人、使犹太人的骄傲降卑的最有力经文，有些就见于犹太人的福音书作者马太笔下。¹⁴¹声称第三卷福音书是在颂扬外邦人（保罗式）的使徒职分，并暗中攻击十二使徒，尤其是彼得，纯属现代过度批判之学的虚构。
它是彰显基督真实而完全之人性的福音书。¹⁴²它为我们写出一部从婴孩、少年直到成年的真实耶稣生平史，奠定了基调。路加将他描绘为世人中最纯洁、最美善的一位，除罪与谬误以外，他凡事与我们相同。路加循着他成长的各个阶段来记述。唯有他告诉我们，孩童耶稣“渐渐长大，强健起来”，不只在身体上如此，在“智慧”上也如此（《路加福音》2:40）；唯有他记述圣殿中那非凡的一幕，告诉我们，耶稣十二岁时，作为一个学习者，坐在“教师中间，一面听，一面问”；甚至在这以后，他的“智慧和身量，并上帝和人喜爱他的心，都一齐增长”（2:46、52）。所有符类福音书作者都叙述了旷野受试探的事，马可又说基督“与野兽同在”，使这一场景更添恐怖（《马可福音》1:12，μετὰ τῶν θηρίων^*）；但路加独特地指出，魔鬼只是“暂时”离开耶稣。唯有他提到耶稣为耶路撒冷流泪，以及在客西马尼（Gethsemane）痛苦祷告时的“血汗”和加添他力量的天使。他既突出耶稣渐进的成长，以及福音从拿撒勒到迦百农、从迦百农到耶路撒冷的进展，后来也同样在《使徒行传》中，追述教会从耶路撒冷到安提阿，从安提阿到以弗所和哥林多，从希腊到罗马的成长。他所写的是一卷历史发展的福音书。几乎所有将福音事实与同时代世界历史联系起来的线索，都是路加提供给我们的。
它是彰显普世人道精神的福音书。它洋溢着真正的仁爱、自由、平等精神，这些精神源自人类的救主，却常被他的大仇敌魔鬼所伪造。它拨动人类同情心最柔和的心弦。它乐于记述基督对病人、卑微者、受鄙视者，甚至妓女和浪子的爱与怜悯。它提及他向贫穷与饥饿的人所宣告的福，向残废、瘸腿和瞎眼的人所发出的邀请，在十字架上为凶恶的杀人者求赦免的祷告，以及向垂死强盗所作的应许。它借好撒马利亚人的比喻，责备犹太人对撒马利亚人那种偏狭与不容异己的精神。当雷子想要吩咐火从天降下，烧灭撒马利亚的一个村庄时，它提醒他们：他来不是要灭人的性命，而是要救人的性命。它告诉我们，“不敌挡基督的，就是帮助基督的”，不论他属于哪个宗派，或不属于任何宗派。
它是为妇女而写的福音书。它将最纯洁的女性典范织入福音故事之中：在救主降生前便向他致意的以利沙伯；万代称她有福的童贞女；不离开圣殿的年老女先知亚拿；忙碌而好客、料理家务的马大，以及她那安静默想的妹妹、伯大尼的马利亚；还有那一群高尚的女门徒，她们用自己的财物，供给上帝之子及其使徒生活上的需要。

它显明基督对夏娃一切受苦女儿的温柔怜悯：拿因城的寡妇，在独生子的灵柩旁哀哭；那堕落的女罪人，以眼泪湿了他的脚；那贫病的女人，在医生身上耗尽了一切养生之资，而他称她为“女儿”；以及那些一路哭泣、跟随他前往髑髅地（Calvary）的“耶路撒冷的女子”。若说我们能在什么地方看见基督神圣的人性，看见纯洁与爱、尊严与温柔怜悯的完美结合，那就是在耶稣对待妇女与儿童的举止中。“文士和法利赛人在街上和会堂里提起衣袍，惟恐碰到妇女，并将公开注视未蒙面纱的妇女视为罪过；我们的主却容许一个他曾从她身上赶出七个鬼的妇女服侍他。”

它是为儿童以及一切具有孩童心灵的人而写的福音书。它给婴孩时期披上神圣的光环与属天的魅力，仿佛在罪恶的世界中延续着纯真的乐园。唯有它记述约翰的诞生与成长、基督降生的细节、他受割礼并在圣殿被献给主、他对父母的顺服，以及他从婴孩到少年、从少年到成年的成长。《路加福音》第1–2章，将永远是儿童和一切喜爱聚集在伯利恒马槽旁、与田野的牧羊人及天上的天使一同欢喜之人最钟爱的篇章。
它是充满诗歌的福音书。¹⁴³我们所指的是宗教的诗歌、敬拜的诗歌、祈祷与感恩的诗歌；这种诗歌并非建立在虚构之上，而是建立在事实与永恒真理之上。这样的诗歌，比日常的散文含有更多的真理。全书充满戏剧性的生动与趣味。它以感恩与赞美开始，也以感恩与赞美结束。《路加福音》第1–2章洋溢着节庆的欢欣与喜乐；它们是一座百花芬芳的乐园，空气中回荡着希伯来诗篇与基督教圣诗的甜美旋律。以利沙伯的问安（“Ave Maria”，万福马利亚）、马利亚的“尊主颂”（“Magnificat”）、撒迦利亚的“祝颂”（“Benedictus”）、众天使的“至高荣耀颂”（“Gloria in Excelsis”）、西面的“安然去世颂”（“Nunc Dimittis”），世世代代以各种语言传唱，不断激发新的赞美诗，归荣耀于基督。

无怪乎单从文学与人道精神的立场来看，第三福音书被誉为有史以来最美的书。¹⁴⁴

文体

路加是福音书作者中最优秀的希腊文作家。¹⁴⁵他的文体显明他广博的文化修养。他的语言没有语法上的讹误，词汇丰富，句式富有节奏。不过，作为一位审慎而尽责的历史家，他的文体随题材以及所依据文献的性质而有相当大的变化。

马太以“世系之书”或“家谱”（βίβλος γενέσεως^*）开篇，颇具特色，使人回想起希伯来文的 Sepher toledoth（参《创世记》5:1；2:4）；马可以“福音的起头”（ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου^*）开篇，立即把读者带入正在展开的行动场景；路加则以一篇具有古典韵味的史学序言开篇，其简洁、谦逊与庄重，无与伦比。但当他开始叙述婴孩时期的历史时——这些材料无疑来自亚兰语 (Aramaic) 的传说或文献——他的语言所带的希伯来色彩，比新约任何其他部分都更为浓厚。撒迦利亚、以利沙伯、马利亚和西面的颂歌，以及天军的赞美，既是最后的希伯来诗篇，也是最早的基督教圣诗。它们可以逐字译回希伯来文，而丝毫不失其美。¹⁴⁶《使徒行传》也具有同样的文体变化：前半部是希伯来式的希腊文，后半部则是纯正的希腊文。

他的词汇量远远超过其他福音书作者：约有180个词只见于他的福音书，而不见于新约其他地方；马太的特有词只有约70个，马可有44个，约翰有50个。《路加福音》有55个、《使徒行传》有135个仅出现一次的词（ἅπαξ λεγόμενα^*），其中许多是动词复合词和罕见的专门术语。

“亲爱的医生”路加所受的医学训练与行医经验，使他熟悉医学术语。这些术语十分自然地出现在他对疾病和医治神迹的叙述中，毫无炫耀专业知识之意，而且与古代医学作家的词汇相符。例如，他说彼得的岳母患了“大热病”，这涉及大热病与小热病的区分（据盖伦〔Galen〕）；¹⁴⁷又说米利大 (Melita) 的部百流 (Publius) 之父所患并得医治的是“诸热病和痢疾”（正如希波克拉底〔Hippocrates〕使用热病一词的复数形式）。¹⁴⁸

他同样熟悉航海，诚然不是以专业海员的身份，而是以富有经验的旅行者和观察准确之人的身份。他使用的航海术语不少于十七个，而且全都十分准确。¹⁴⁹《使徒行传》第27–28章对保罗航程及船难的叙述，经一位博学的海员解释并证实，为该书作者的才干与可信性提供了无可辩驳的论据。¹⁵⁰

路加喜爱使用表达欢欣与喜乐的词语。¹⁵¹他常常提及圣灵，而且唯有他为我们记述了五旬节的神迹。¹⁵²一些较小的特点是：论到加利利湖时，采用较为准确的 λίμνη^*，而不用 θάλασσα^*；以 νομικός^* 和 νομοδιδάσκαλος^* 代替 γραμματεύς^*；引文中以 τὸ εἰρημένον^* 代替 ῥηθέν^*；以 νῦν^* 代替 ἄρτι^*；以 ἑσπέρα^* 代替 ὀψία^*；以及频繁使用关系代词的格吸引和分词结构。

路加与保罗的文体有惊人的相似之处，这与他们心灵上的契合及长期的亲密交往相符。¹⁵³他们对主餐设立的记述彼此一致，而这也是我们现存最早的记述（始于公元57年）；两人都以“这杯是用我的血所立的新约”代替“这是我立（新）约的血”，并加上：“你们应当如此行，为的是记念我”（《路加福音》22:19、20；《哥林多前书》11:24、25）。两人同样喜爱使用那些表明福音救恩之自由及其普及万民旨向的词语。¹⁵⁴他们共有许多不见于新约其他地方的词语。¹⁵⁵而且，他们在思想与措辞上时常不谋而合，其方式既显明两位作者的亲密关系，也显明他们各自的独立性。¹⁵⁶

真正性¹⁵⁷

《路加福音》的真正性不容合理的怀疑。就我们从《使徒行传》和书信中对作者的认识而言，这部福音书的性质完全符合我们对他的预期。没有其他作者符合这一描述。

外部证据不及支持《马太福音》和《马可福音》的证据那样古老而明确。帕皮亚 (Papias) 没有提到路加。或许他认为没有必要，因为路加本人已在序言中说明了本书的起源与目的。巴拿巴 (Barnabas)、罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome) 和黑马 (Hermas) 作品中的暗示，都模糊而不确定。不过，其他见证已足以证明此事。高卢 (Gaul) 的爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 说：“保罗的同伴路加，将保罗所传的福音写了下来。”载有意大利正典传统的穆拉托里残篇 (Muratori fragment) 提到这部福音书的作者：“医生路加，保罗将他接到自己身边，作为一位热心于义的同伴；他未曾亲眼见过肉身中的主，却尽其所能追溯考察，从约翰的诞生开始记述这段历史。”殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 多次引用《路加福音》，虽未提及作者的名字。¹⁵⁸这使我们追溯到140年或130年。这部福音书见于所有古代抄本与译本。

异端马吉安 (Marcion) 自140年起所提供的见证，同样具有决定性。人们一向认为，他所承认的唯一一部福音书，是《路加福音》的残缺本；如今，曾一度企图颠倒这个次序、把马吉安那歪曲的版本当作《路加福音》原本的学派，其自身的研究与让步，反倒证实并最终确立了这一看法。¹⁵⁹伪克莱门文献中的《讲道集》(Homilies) 与《认知录》(Recognitions) 都引用了《路加福音》。巴西利德 (Basilides)、瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 及其追随者使用全部四部福音书，据传还曾为自己的目的引用《路加福音》1:35。

塞尔苏斯 (Celsus) 提到基督的家谱追溯至亚当时，心中所指必定是《路加福音》。

可信性

《路加福音》的可信性曾受到攻击，理由是路加按照自己的动机与目的塑造历史，要调和教会中属彼得与属保罗的两派，或犹太基督徒与外邦基督徒两派。然而，同一批批评家又自相矛盾，转而在路加的作品中发现强烈的犹太化、甚至伊便尼派 (Ebionitic) 的成分，从而把它说成是温和保罗主义 (Paulinism) 与伊便尼主义 (Ebionism) 拼成的不连贯的镶嵌画，或笨拙的拼凑物；或者，他们武断地假定该书经历了不同的修订，却始终未在布局上取得统一。

针对这种歪曲，我们必须指出：(1) 我们完全可以承认路加的著作具有谋求和睦的精神，但这并不意味着篡改或虚构事实。相反，这不过是一种不抱宗派偏见的大公精神，所追求的唯有真理，此外别无所求；这正是历史家的首要职责与美德。(2) 那些被曲解来迎合倾向假说的奇妙比喻与讲论，绝不是路加虚构的；否则，路加便具有最高的创造天才，足与耶稣本人媲美，而他却谦逊地自称不过是实际事实的忠实搜集者。(3) 保罗本人也没有创立自己的教义类型；照他自己庄严的声明，他是借着耶稣基督的启示领受的，而基督呼召他作外邦人的使徒。(4) 如今人们普遍承认，图宾根 (Tübingen) 假说对使徒教会中两种类型与两派之间差异的强调，大大过了头，并被保罗本人在《加拉太书》中的见证所推翻；该书对柱石使徒所表现的和平与和解精神，与它对“假”弟兄或异端犹太主义者毫不妥协的论战精神，同样鲜明。(5) 基督有些最强烈的反对犹太人、支持外邦人的见证，见于《马太福音》，却为路加所省略。¹⁶⁰

路加的准确性前面已经谈过；戈代 (Godet) 针对勒南 (Renan) 在若干细节上的批评，也曾为此作出有力的辩护。“《路加福音》虽始终完全独立于其他三部福音书，却得到它们全体的证实与支持。”

写作时间

有充分迹象表明，第三福音书写成于58至63年之间（并非在此期间刊行），即保罗在罗马被囚结束之前。搜集并整理材料，无疑需要数年；而此书很可能直到保罗去世以后，才与《使徒行传》同时刊行，即抄写并传布。《使徒行传》构成第二部，题献给同一位赞助者。这样，亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 与爱任纽彼此冲突的记载，就可以得到调和。¹⁶¹

保罗在凯撒利亚与罗马被囚的四年间，路加有最充裕的闲暇从事写作。在凯撒利亚，他很容易接触到尚在人世的目击者，也很容易到达福音历史中的著名地点；我们不能设想他会放过这个机会。
这部福音书写于《使徒行传》之前，后者明确提及它，称它为题献给同一位提阿非罗 (Theophilus) 的前书（《使徒行传》1:1）。《使徒行传》的记述延续到保罗在罗马被囚的第二年，因此不可能在公元63年以前完成；但它突然中断，丝毫未提保罗获释或殉道，所以很有可能是在这位使徒的命运尚未确定之前就已结束写作；除非作者像马可一样，受到某件事情——或许是尼禄的逼迫——的阻碍，未能为本书写下自然的结尾。它现有的形式，激起读者极大的好奇心，而只需寥寥数语便可使之得到满足：或说这位使徒以自己的血印证了他的见证，或说他又开始了新的东西方宣教旅程，直至第二次在罗马被囚之后，才终于跑尽了他的路程。我还可以补充一点：《使徒行传》完全没有提及保罗的任何一封书信；若假定两者几乎同时写成，这很容易解释；若假定中间相隔十年或二十年，就几乎无法理解了。
路加不知道《马太福音》，很可能也不知道《马可福音》，这一点同样指向较早的写作年代。像路加这样审慎的考察者，若在70年以后写作，在他众多的书面资料之中，几乎不可能忽略《马太福音》这样重要的文献；而最优秀的批评家都认为它写于公元70年以前。
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 保存了一项传统，认为含有家谱的福音书，即《马太福音》和《路加福音》，最先写成。诚然，爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 把第三福音书置于《马太福音》和《马可福音》之后，并置于彼得和保罗去世之后，也就是64年以后（但肯定不是70年以后）。如果对观福音书几乎同时写成，传统中的这些差异便很容易解释。爱任纽对于年代的了解并不比革利免更准确；他关于基督的年龄和《启示录》写作年代的看法，显然有误。不过，他所着眼的或许是刊行的时间；这不可与写作的年代混为一谈。即使在今日，许多书也因某种缘故，在印刷完成数月乃至数年之后，仍未上市。

反对如此早的写作年代的那些理由，并无充分根据。¹⁶²

《路加福音》1:1暗示，在它之前已有若干部片段性的福音书，这不必令我们惊讶；因为像拿撒勒人耶稣这样的故事，必定很早就促使许多人提笔写作。兰格 (Lange) 说：“即使书写之术原本不存在，也会为这样的题材而发明出来。”

较有分量的反对意见是：路加似乎调整了基督关于末世的预言，使之适合已经发生的应验；他提到围城的（罗马）军队，又在耶路撒冷的毁灭与世界的末了之间，插入了“外邦人的日期”（《路加福音》19:43、44；21:20–24）。这样，写作年代就应放在耶路撒冷毁灭之后，姑且说在70至80年之间，甚至更晚。¹⁶³ 但这样蓄意更改我们主的话，与这位历史家无可置疑的诚实，以及他对这位神圣教师之言的敬畏，都是不相容的。¹⁶⁴ 况且，事实也不支持这种说法。因为其他对观福音书作者同样提到战争，以及圣地那行毁坏可憎的事，这指的是犹太战争和罗马的鹰旗（《马太福音》24:15；《马可福音》13:14）。路加记载主说：“耶路撒冷要被外邦人践踏，直到外邦人的日期满了”（《路加福音》21:24）。但马太也有同样的记载：他记述基督预言并吩咐，要先将天国的福音传遍天下，末期才来到（《马太福音》24:14；28:19；参《马可福音》16:15）。甚至保罗在耶路撒冷毁灭前十二年，就用几乎与路加相同的话说：“以色列人有了眼瞎，直到外邦人的数目添满了”（《罗马书》11:25）。难道我们因此就必须把《罗马书》的写作年代放在公元70年以后吗？另一方面，路加与马太和马可一样，清楚记载了基督的话：“这世代还没有过去，凡这些事”（即前述预言）“都要成就”（《路加福音》21:32）。如果他有意在耶路撒冷的毁灭与世界的末了之间插入一段较长的时间，为什么不删去这一段呢？

因此，我们主关于末世的讲论，在各部对观福音书中本质上相同，也带来同样的难题；要消除这些难题，只能作如下理解：（1）这些讲论既指耶路撒冷的毁灭，也指世界的末了；二者是相类似的事件，前者是后者的预表；（2）这两件在时间上相距遥远的事，按照先知异象的方式，在一幅全景图中被描绘为空间上紧密相邻的景象。我们还必须记得，就连上帝的儿子在降卑的日子，也明言自己不知道世界末了的确切日期（《马太福音》24:36；《马可福音》13:32）；因此，这日期是人类的知识和推算所不能及的。唯一的差别在于，路加把预言性的讲论分开，分别放在不同的场合，因而更清楚地区分了这两件事（《路加福音》17:20–37及21:5–33）；在这里，正如在其他地方一样，他的记载可能更为精确，也与我们主的几处暗示相合：耶路撒冷的灾难与世界最后的灾难之间，必定相隔一段相当长的时间。

写作地点

第三福音书没有透露写作地点。古代传统并不确定，近代批评家也意见纷纭，分别主张希腊 (Greece)、¹⁶⁵ 亚历山大 (Alexandria)、¹⁶⁶ 以弗所 (Ephesus)、¹⁶⁷ 凯撒利亚 (Caesarea)、¹⁶⁸ 罗马 (Rome)。¹⁶⁹ 本书很可能是作者在腓立比 (Philippi)、凯撒利亚和罗马较长时期居留时，分段写成的；但我们无法断定它是在何处完成并刊行的。¹⁷⁰

§ 83. 约翰

参见本卷§ 40关于约翰的文献；本卷§§ 41–43关于约翰的生平与品格；§ 72关于约翰的神学，第549页及后。

最好的留到最后。第四福音书是福音书中的福音书，是《新约》中的至圣所。这位蒙爱的门徒、基督的知己、他母亲的照顾者、使徒时期最后的生还者，凭着天赋与恩典，格外具备资格，将那位曾行走于世、无比奇妙的人物的内在面貌呈现给教会。他在年少时便已领受夫子最深奥的话语，并将其珍藏在忠信的心中；到了暮年，仍怀着壮年的热情与活力，在圣灵的感动下将这些话重述出来。这位圣灵住在他里面，引导他，也引导其他门徒，进入“一切的真理”。

他的福音书是默示时代金色的落日，其光辉照入教会的第二世纪，以及其后所有的世纪。本书写于以弗所；那时耶路撒冷已成废墟，教会已与会堂彻底分离，“犹太人”与基督徒已成为两个截然不同的族类，而犹太信徒与外邦信徒则已融合为同质的基督徒群体。他们虽是敌对世界中的一小群人，却信心坚固，充满盼望与喜乐，并确信必将得胜。

若要妥善讨论这部福音书所涉及的难题，以及它与对观福音书之间的鲜明对照，我们就必须牢记这一事实：基督不仅在有形地离去之前与使徒相交，也在离去之后与他们相交；他借着那位“另一位保惠师”向他们说话。这位保惠师是他从父那里差来的，使他们想起他对他们所说的一切话。¹⁷¹ 这幅画像若无上帝的默示，任何人间艺术家都无法绘成；而它的真实性，其保证正在于此。若取任何其他观点，第四福音书，乃至整部《新约》，就成了文学史上最奇异的谜，无法得到任何合理的解答。

约翰与对观福音书作者

如果约翰在对观福音书作者之后很久才写作，我们自然不能期待他重复那已经由三位独立见证人如此出色地讲述过的故事。但令人惊讶的是，他虽最后写作，所写的却是全部福音书中最具独创性的一部。

从马太转到马可，再从马可转到路加，过渡是轻松而自然的；但从任何一部对观福音书转到第四福音书，我们所呼吸的便是另一种空气，仿佛忽然从肥沃的山谷被带上高山之巅，极目远眺，眼前展开全新的秀美壮丽景象。我们找不到耶稣的家谱、他的降生记述、施洗约翰的讲道、旷野受试探的历史、约旦河受洗和山上变像的记载，也找不到十二使徒的名单，或医治被鬼附者的神迹。约翰没有讲述教会和圣礼的设立；然而，他的书中充满了构成教会本质的奥秘联合与相交，也呈现了洗礼和圣餐的属灵意义（《约翰福音》第3章和第6章）。他省略了升天，虽然基督曾借抹大拉的马利亚传达升天的应许（20:17）。他只字未提登山宝训和主祷文，没有那些无可仿效的天国比喻，也没有那些对法利赛人设下圈套的问题所作的有力回答。他省略了耶路撒冷倾覆和世界末了的预言，也省略了大部分那些格言式的道德训言和箴语；这些话蕴含超凡的智慧，被对观福音书作者串联起来，犹如一颗颗闪耀的钻石。

然而，约翰以丰富的新材料，代替这些对观福音书的记载；这些材料的趣味和重要性，即使不更大，至少也不相逊色。刚到门口，我们就听见仿佛从永恒深处传来的一声雷鸣，令人震惊：“太初有道。”继续读下去，我们听见世界的创造、真光照在黑暗中、预备性的启示、道 (Logos) 的道成肉身，以及施洗约翰为上帝羔羊所作的见证。我们怀着愈加惊叹的心，聆听那些奥秘的讲论：论从圣灵重生，论生命的水、从天上来的生命之粮，论永恒独生子与父、与世界、与信徒的关系，论圣灵的使命，论天上许多住处的应许，论向门徒告别；最后，是那使我们最接近上帝宝座和他跳动之心的祭司祷告。只有约翰记载了耶稣与尼哥底母、撒马利亚妇人和希腊外来者的会面。他记载了六件对观福音书未曾提及的神迹，其中包括两件最大的神迹——变水为酒，以及使拉撒路从坟墓中复活。而在他与对观福音书记述同一事件之处，例如使五千人吃饱的神迹，他又添上了奥秘的讲论，说明信徒如何在灵里得生命之粮的喂养，而这样的喂养自那时以来便一直持续。在末后几章关于被出卖、彼得不认主、在宗教与民事法庭受审、被钉十字架和复活的记载中，他最接近先前的作者；但即使在这里，他也更为精确详尽，并补充了引人入胜的细节，其中带着明确无误的亲眼观察的印记。

他补足了基督在犹太 (Judaea)、在耶路撒冷宗教领袖和百姓中间的事工，将其延展至三年；对观福音书则似乎将其限定为一年，并主要着眼于他在加利利 (Galilee) 农民中间的劳作。但仔细考察便可看出，约翰为加利利的事工留下了充分余地，对观福音书也为犹太的事工留下了充分余地。没有一部福音书是完整的传记。约翰明确表示，他无意写这样的传记（20:31）。马太记载基督呼喊：“耶路撒冷啊，耶路撒冷啊……我多次愿意聚集你的儿女”，便暗示他曾屡次到访圣城（23:37；参27:57）。另一方面，约翰记载了迦拿 (Cana) 的几件神迹，显然只是从许多神迹中选出的典型事例（2:1及后；4:47及后；6:1及后）。但光明与黑暗、信与不信之间的伟大冲突，是在耶路撒冷发展得最充分，并逐步达到最后的危急关头；描写这一冲突，正是他的主要目的之一。

约翰与对观福音书作者之间的差异既多且大，却并无矛盾。

写作契机

爱任纽是小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 人，又是约翰属灵上的再传弟子，因此他的见证值得特别重视。他说：“后来”［即在马太、马可和路加之后］，“主的门徒约翰，就是那曾靠着主胸膛的，也在居住于亚细亚的以弗所期间，亲自刊行了一部福音书。”¹⁷² 在另一处，他把诺斯替 (Gnostic) 异端的兴起视为促成本书写作的契机。¹⁷³

有一则奇特的传统，可能含有一线真实，将本书的写作归因于约翰的同门门徒和以弗所长老们的请求。据《穆拉多利残篇》(Muratorian fragment，170年) 记载，约翰说：“从现在［即他们提出请求之时］起，同我禁食三天；凡我们各人所领受的启示［关于我撰写福音书一事］，我们都要彼此述说。就在那一夜，使徒之一的安得烈得了启示，知道约翰应当以自己的名义叙述一切，并由众人共同审订，予以协助。¹⁷⁴ ……那么，约翰在每一细节上都如此着重陈述，甚至在他的书信中也论到自己说：‘我们亲眼所看见、亲耳所听见、亲手所摸过的这些事，我们都写给你们了’，这又有什么可惊奇的呢？因为他这样表明，自己不只是亲眼见过、亲耳听过的人，而且也是按历史次序记述主一切奇妙作为的人。”¹⁷⁵

这篇残篇提到安得烈，颇值得注意，因为他与约翰同为施洗约翰的学生，又同为最先蒙召进入基督门下的人（约1:35–40）。他在其他方面也颇为突出，在使徒名录中位列那三位蒙爱的门徒之后，甚至紧接在他哥哥彼得之后。¹⁷⁶

佩陶的维克托里努斯 (Victorinus of Pettau，约卒于304年) 在《启示录疏解》(Scholia on the Apocalypse) 中说，约翰是在《启示录》之后写福音书的，起因是诺斯替异端的蔓延，以及“邻近各省所有主教”的请求。¹⁷⁷

哲罗姆 (Jerome) 根据一则类似的传统，记述约翰在弟兄们的敦促之下，答应执笔，条件是众人一同禁食，向上帝祷告；禁食之后，他充满了启示（revelatione saturatus），便写下这篇从天而来的序言：“太初有道。”¹⁷⁸

那些促使约翰撰写福音书的同门门徒和学生，可能正是后来为本书的真实性补上见证的那些人；他们用复数说话（“我们也知道他的见证是真的”，21:24），其中一人则担任书记（“我想”，21:25）。

当然，外在的契机并不排除圣灵内在的感动；事实上，这则传统本身便蕴含了这一点。但它表明，古代教会与那种忽视或否认使徒著作写作过程中人为及自然因素的机械式默示论，相距何等遥远。路加的序言也证明了同一点。

目的

第四福音书并不以提供一部完整的基督传记为目标，反而明确宣告，耶稣“在门徒面前另外行了许多神迹，没有记在这书上”（约20:30；参21:25）。

作者清楚说明了自己的目的，其他一切目的都只能作为附带之事从属于它，就是引导读者相信“耶稣是基督，是上帝的儿子，并且叫他们信了他，就可以因他的名得生命”（20:31）。这包含三点：（1）耶稣的弥赛亚身份，这对犹太人至关重要，也是犹太人的福音书作者马太唯一的目的，或至少是主要目的；（2）耶稣作为上帝之子的身份，这是需要使外邦人信服的一点，也是外邦人的福音书作者路加所着眼的；（3）这种信仰的实际益处，即在他里面、借着他获得真实、属灵、永恒的生命，因为他就是永生的位格化体现和源头。

其他所有曾被提出的目的，都必须从属于这一历史兼教诲的目的。本书既不是论战或护教之作，也不是补充或调和之作；它只是附带而非有意地兼有这些功用。作者写作时充分顾及了第一世纪末教会的状况与需要，并据此组织自己的记载；他以读者大体熟悉较早的福音书为前提，借着陈述事实与真理，间接驳斥当时的谬误。因此，那些将本书某一附带目的视为其主要或唯一目的的理论，也含有某种程度的真理。

反异端说由爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 首创。他自己全神贯注于反对诺斯替主义的论争，又在约翰的著作中找到了最有力的武器，因而认为约翰的动机在于根除克林妥 (Cerinthus) 和尼哥拉派 (Nicolaitans) 的谬误，表明“只有一位上帝，他借着自己的道创造了万有；并非如他们所说，创造世界的是一位，作主之父的又是另一位”。¹⁷⁹ 哲罗姆又加上与之相反的伊便尼主义 (Ebionism) 的谬误，埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 则加上施洗约翰门徒的谬误。

无疑，第四福音书借着正面陈明真理，最有效地驳斥了第一世纪末开始在小亚细亚抬头的诺斯替二元论和幻影说 (doketism)。它表明，信仰中理想的基督与历史中真实的基督是和谐一致的，而古代和现代的诺斯替学派却无法将二者统一于同一个体之中。但本书并不因此就是一篇论战文字；相反，它深邃的思辨，甚至对从巴西里得 (Basilides) 到鲍尔 (Baur) 的诺斯替派和哲学理性主义者，都具有特殊的吸引力。古代诺斯替派最先运用本书，并大量引用其序言，例如这一段：“那照亮一切人的真光，正在来到世上”（1:9）。¹⁸⁰

论战的目的在《约翰一书》中更为明显；它直接警告人提防当时威胁教会的反基督谬误，可以称为福音书在教义与实践方面的一篇后记。

补充说。亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria，约200年) 根据“前一代长老们”的权威说，约翰应朋友的请求，又受神圣之灵的感动，在那些陈述外在事实的较早的属身福音书之外，增添了一部属灵的福音书。¹⁸¹ 这种区分颇为精妙。约翰比对观福音书作者更为属灵，也更富理想性；他所代表的，仿佛是教会内传的传统，有别于外传的传统。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 也记载了一种流行的看法，说约翰有意补述其他福音书作者所略去的基督事工早期的一部分。¹⁸² 无疑，无论在内容上还是精神上，约翰都是一位极受欢迎的补充者，也在某种程度上提供了充分理解对观福音书的钥匙；然而，他也重复了许多重要事件，尤其在末尾几章中，而且他的福音书与任何一部福音书同样完整。¹⁸³
调和倾向说是现代图宾根学派 (Tübingen) 的发明。它假定第四福音书纯属思辨性或神学性的著作，是最后一部、也是登峰造极的文学作品，完成了将犹太基督教与外邦基督教统一起来、熔铸成第二世纪一个大公教会的过程。

无疑，就“调和之书”(Irenicon) 一词最高、最美的意义而言，本书是教会的调和之书，也是对未来教会的预言：届时，基督教世界过去与现在的一切纷争，都将在基督徒与基督的完全联合中归于和谐；这正是他大祭司祷告的最终目标。但它并不是一部以牺牲真理与事实为代价的调和之书。

图宾根批评家为了贯彻其假说，竟诉诸最荒诞的虚构。他们说，作者贬低摩西的制度，又对彼得流露嫉妒。这究竟怎能促进和平呢？反而只会使其目的落空。但这种断言毫无证据。作者虽反对不信的犹太人，却对《旧约》怀有最高的敬意，并指出救恩是从犹太人出来的。他非但没有嫉妒彼得，反而在彼得初次与耶稣见面时便介绍他的新名字（1:42），比马太更完整地记下他那伟大的认信（约6:68、69），将他列在使徒名单之首（21:2），并始终给予他应有的突出地位，直到最后一次会面，复活的主将喂养群羊的使命托付给他（21:15–19）。这一歪曲，与勒南 (Renan) 所采纳的另一则图宾根神话如出一辙：他们声称，真正的约翰在《启示录》中意在与保罗论战，故意将他排除在十二使徒之列。然而，保罗自己在公认真实的《加拉太书》中，却把约翰列为三位柱石使徒之一；他们承认他在外邦人使徒职分上的特殊恩赐，并向他伸出右手，表示彼此相交。

内容分析

约翰的目的决定了材料的选择与安排。他的布局比对观福音书作者更为清晰而有系统。它揭示信与不信、光明与黑暗之间日益加剧的冲突，逐步引向十字架这一伟大的危急关头，最终以多马的呼喊结束：“我的主！我的上帝！”

在以下分析中，约翰所独有的段落均以星号标出。

*I. 序言。福音书的主题：道 (Logos)，永恒启示上帝的那一位：

(1.) 与上帝的关系，约1:1、2。

(2.) 与世界的关系。普遍启示，1:3–5。

(3.) 与施洗约翰及犹太人的关系。特殊启示，1:6–13。

(4.) 道成肉身及其对门徒的影响，1:14–18。

成了肉身的道借着有功效的言语与作为公开显现，1:19至12:50。

*(1.) 施洗约翰预备性的见证，指出耶稣就是那应许中、众人所盼望的弥赛亚，也是背负世人罪孽的上帝羔羊，1:19–37。

*(2.) 最初一批门徒的聚集，1:38–51。

*(3.) 第一个神迹：在加利利的迦拿 (Cana) 变水为酒，2:1–11。初次在迦百农 (Capernaum) 逗留，2:12。公开事工期间的第一个逾越节及赴耶路撒冷之行，2:13。

*(4.) 作为改革行动的洁净圣殿，2:14–22。（对观福音书也有记载，但置于公开事工的末期。）在耶路撒冷犹太人中间的劳作，2:23–25。

*(5.) 与尼哥底母的谈话；他代表胆怯的门徒，即犹太人中的上层人士。重生是进入上帝之国的条件，3:1–15。上帝差遣他的儿子拯救世人所显明的爱，3:16–21。（耶路撒冷。）

*(6.) 耶稣在犹太的劳作。施洗约翰的见证：他必兴旺，我必衰微，3:22–36。（约翰下监后，耶稣离开，前往加利利，4:1–3；参太4:12；可1:14；路4:14。）

*(7.) 从犹太往加利利途中在撒马利亚 (Samaria) 的劳作。撒马利亚妇人；雅各井；生命之水；用心灵和诚实敬拜那作为灵的上帝；庄稼渐熟，可以收割，约4:1–42。耶稣在加利利公开施教，4:43–45（参太4:17；可1:14、15；路4:14、15）。

*(8.) 耶稣再次来到加利利的迦拿，医治一位大臣在迦百农的儿子，约4:46–54。

*(9.) 在一个节期（第二个逾越节？）第二次前往耶路撒冷。在安息日医治毕士大池 (Bethesda) 边的病人，5:1–18。犹太人的敌意开始显露。基督论自己与父的关系，以及自己审判世界之权柄的讲论，5:19–47。

(10.) 使五千人吃饱，6:1–14。平静风浪，6:15–21。

*在迦百农论生命之粮的奥秘讲论；门徒受到筛选；彼得的认信：“我们还归从谁呢？”等等；暗示犹大的背叛，6:22–71。

*(11.) 在住棚节第三次来到耶路撒冷。耶稣那些不信他的弟兄所提出的轻率请求。他在圣殿中的讲论引起截然相反的反应。犹太人的敌意日增；宗教领袖视他为迷惑百姓的假教师，企图捉拿他，却徒劳无功，7:1–52。

[*(12^a.) 行淫时被拿的妇人蒙耶稣赦免，7:53–8:11。耶路撒冷。可能是根据口传插入的一段，真实可信，却非出自约翰之笔。也见于本书末尾及《路加福音》第21章。]

*(12^b.) 论世界之光的讲论。上帝的儿女与魔鬼的儿女。众人企图用石头打耶稣，《约翰福音》8:12–59。

*(13.) 在安息日医治生来瞎眼的人，以及他在法利赛人面前的见证，9:1–41。

*(14.) 好牧人的比喻，10:1–21。修殿节时在所罗门廊下的讲论，10:22–39。离去，来到约旦河外的地方，10:40–42。

*(15.) 拉撒路在伯大尼 (Bethany) 复活，以及此事如何促使危机加速到来。该亚法的计议。耶稣离开耶路撒冷，退到以法莲 (Ephraim)，11:1–57。

(16.) 马利亚在伯大尼用香膏膏耶稣，12:1–8。祭司长的计议，12:9–11。

(17.) 进入耶路撒冷，12:12–19。（比较《马太福音》21:1–17；《马可福音》11:1–11；《路加福音》19:29–44。）

*(18.) 希腊人来访。耶稣论一粒麦子必须死去才能结实的讲论；从天上来的声音；十字架的吸引力；相反的反应；福音书作者的感言；耶稣讲论的总结，《约翰福音》12:20–50。

基督在门徒圈内私下的显明。在第四个、也是最后一个逾越节的一周之内。耶路撒冷，13:1–17:26。

*(1.) 耶稣在逾越节筵席之前为门徒洗脚，13:1–20。

(2.) 他指明那出卖他的人，13:21–27。犹大离去，13:27–30。

*(3.) 爱的新命令，13:31–35。（设立圣餐一事放在这里最为合宜；约翰未予记载，但所有对观福音书作者及保罗都有记述。）

(4.) 预言彼得不认主，13:36–38。

*(5.) 对门徒的临别讲论；应许赐下保惠师 (Paraclete)，以及基督再来，14:1–16:33。

*(6.) 大祭司的祷告，17:1–26。

基督在钉十字架与复活中得荣耀，18:1–20:31。

(1.) 渡过汲沦溪 (Kedron)，以及被出卖，18:1–11。

(2.) 耶稣在大祭司亚那和该亚法面前，18:12–14、19–24。

(3.) 彼得不认主，18:15–18、25–27。

(4.) 耶稣在罗马巡抚本丢·彼拉多 (Pontius Pilate) 面前，18:28–19:16。其中一部分为本书独有（19:4–16）。

(5.) 钉十字架，19:17–37。

(6.) 耶稣的安葬，19:38–42。

(7.) 复活。抹大拉的马利亚、彼得和约翰来到空坟墓，20:1–10。

(8.) 基督向抹大拉的马利亚显现，20:11–18。

*(9.) 复活之日的晚上，基督向使徒显现，多马除外，20:19–23。

*(10.) 下一个主日，基督向使徒显现，多马也在其中，20:26–29。

*(11.) 本福音书的宗旨，20:30、31

*V. 附录与结语，21:1–25。

(1.) 基督在加利利湖边向七个门徒显现。这是第三次向门徒显现，21:1–14。

(2.) 与西门·彼得的对话：“你爱我吗？”“你牧养我的羊。”“你跟从我吧”，21:15–19。

(3.) 关于那蒙爱门徒的奥秘话语，21:1–23。

(4.) 约翰的学生对本福音书作者身份的证实，21:24、25。

第四福音书的特征

《约翰福音》是一切文献中最具独创性、最重要、最有影响力的书。伟大的奥利金 (Origen) 称它为福音书之冠，正如福音书是全部圣典之冠。¹⁸⁴ 它尤其是一部属灵的、理想的福音书，同时又是最真实的福音书，是对原型最忠实的摹写。它揭开至圣所的幔子，显明从父而来的独生子的荣耀，充充满满地有恩典有真理。它将对基督最深的认识与最纯的爱和谐地结合起来。我们仿佛听见他的心跳；我们把手放在他的伤痕上，与那怀疑的多马一同呼喊：“我的主，我的上帝！”没有一本书如此浅显而又如此深邃，如此自然而又如此充满奥秘。它单纯如孩童，崇高如撒拉弗，温柔如羔羊，豪迈如雄鹰，深如海洋，高如诸天。

它被誉为“独一无二、温柔、真挚的福音书”，是“天使亲手写成的”，是“基督的心”，是“上帝写给世界的情书”，或“基督写给教会的情书”。它对基督教世界中许多最坚强、最高尚的心灵产生了不可抗拒的魅力，如埃及的奥利金、亚细亚的金口约翰 (Chrysostom)、非洲的奥古斯丁 (Augustin)、德国的路德 (Luther)、法国的加尔文 (Calvin)、富于诗意的赫尔德 (Herder)、精于批判的施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)，以及各学派、各思想派别中无数名声稍逊的作者。甚至许多怀疑或否认本书出自使徒之手的人，也禁不住赞叹它那超凡脱俗的美。¹⁸⁵

但另有一些怀疑者，觉得约翰所记的讲论单调、冗长、朦胧、无意义、艰涩，正如最初的听众一样，对这些话深感反感。¹⁸⁶

让我们指出本书有别于对观福音书的主要特征。

第四福音书是道成肉身的福音书，即论神性与人性在拿撒勒人耶稣的位格中完全联合的福音书；也正因如此，他是世界的救主，是永生的泉源。“道成了肉身。”这是本书在理论上的主题。作者以逻各斯 (Logos) 永恒的先存为开端，以怀疑的多马呼喊“我的主，我的上帝！”、敬拜那道成肉身者的神性为结尾。路加的序言属于史学性质，仅仅指明他的资料来源；约翰的序言则属于形而上学和教义性质，为随后的历史奏出基调。对观福音书作者从耶稣这个人开始，逐步上升，认识到他的弥赛亚身份和神子身份；约翰则从先存的上帝之子开始，经过预备性的启示，下降到他的道成肉身和钉十字架，直至他重新获得创世以前所有的荣耀。前者给我们的是一个神圣之人的历史，后者给我们的是一位成为人的上帝的历史。这并不是说，约翰把他与神本身（ὁ θεός^*）等同起来；相反，他清楚区分子与父，并认为子在尊位上低于父（“父是比我大的”）；然而，他宣告子是“上帝”（θεός^*），即具有神的本质或本性。

然而，除非有人认为神性与人性不可能联合于一个位格之中，否则福音书作者在这里并无矛盾。基督教会向来认为，对观福音书与约翰笔下的基督乃是同一位，只是从不同角度加以呈现。自奥利金直到今日，最伟大的学者和最敏锐的批评家，都赞同这一判断。

因为，一方面，约翰笔下的基督，与对观福音书中的基督一样真实，一样具有真正的人性。他称自己为人子，也称自己为“人”（《约翰福音》8:40）；他“心里悲叹”（11:33），在朋友的坟墓前“哭了”（11:35）；面对钉十字架的黑暗时刻（12:27）以及叛徒的罪行（13:1），他的“心”就“忧愁”。福音书作者根据亲眼所见，庄严而着重地见证耶稣确实受苦并且死了（19:33–35）。¹⁸⁷

另一方面，对观福音书中的基督，与约翰笔下的基督一样，确实超乎普通世人之上。诚然，他没有像《约翰福音》1:1；6:62；8:58；17:5、24那样，用明确的言辞宣告自己的先存，但这一点已隐含其中，或可作为合理的结论推导出来。他成孕而无罪，是大卫的后裔，却又是大卫的主（《马太福音》22:41）；他声称自己有赦罪的权柄，因此被犹太人指控为说僭妄的话（从他们不信的立场看，这是完全一贯的）；他舍命作赎价，为要救赎世界；他将要在荣耀中降临，审判万民；甚至在各派理性主义者都承认为他真实教训的登山宝训中，他也宣告自己是世界的审判者（《马太福音》7:21–23；比较25:31–46）；在施洗的公式中，他把自己和圣灵与永恒的父并列，自己作为二者之间的联系，因而占据了神本身宝座上的位置（28:19）。不可能再升得更高了。因此，犹太人的福音书作者马太，毫不迟疑地把以马内利这个名字，即“上帝与我们同在”，用在他身上（1:23）。马可给我们的是彼得的福音；彼得首先承认，耶稣不仅在职分上是“基督”，也是“永生上帝的儿子”。这远不止是众子中的一个；它指明他与上帝独一无二的位格关系，并构成他在历史中弥赛亚身份的永恒根基（《马太福音》16:16；比较26:63）。这两个称号是有区别的，大祭司所提出的僭妄指控（26:65），只能适用于后者。假弥赛亚是冒充者，却不是亵渎者。在施洗的公式中，我们不能以弥赛亚取代子。彼得、马可和马太都在最正统的一神信仰中长大，本能地憎恶任何稍近于偶像崇拜的事，然而他们却怀着敬拜的心仰望自己的夫子。至于路加，他乐于始终把耶稣描绘为罪人的无罪救主，并且完全认同他的年长弟兄保罗的神学；保罗无疑早在福音书写成或发表的数年以前，就已教导基督的先存和神性（《罗马书》1:3、4；9:5；《哥林多后书》8:9；《歌罗西书》1:15–17；《腓立比书》2:6–11）。

它是爱的福音书。它在实践上的格言是：“上帝就是爱。”在永恒之道的道成肉身中，在他的儿子于历史中受差遣的使命中，上帝已将他对人类的爱证明到无以复加的地步。唯独在第四福音书里，我们读到那包含基督教精髓的宝贵话语：“上帝爱世人，甚至将他的独生子赐给他们，叫一切信他的，不至灭亡，反得永生”（《约翰福音》3:16）。它是好牧人为羊舍命的福音书（10:11）；是“彼此相爱”这条新命令的福音书（13:34）。这也是那位年老的、“耶稣所爱的”门徒最后的劝勉。

但正因为基督是上帝赐给世界最大的恩赐，不信就是最大的罪、最深重的忘恩负义，其中本身便包含着定罪。没有别处像第四福音书这样，将不信的罪责、信与不信的对照，呈现得如此鲜明。对基督的一切仇敌而言，它乃是烈火。

它是奥秘象征的福音书。¹⁸⁸ 它所记载的八个神迹，是意义深远的“记号”（σημεῖα^*），象征基督的品格和使命，并显明他的荣耀。这些不过是他的“工作”（ἔργα^*），是他奇妙位格的自然流露，施行起来就像人做日常工作一样轻而易举。变水为酒表明他使事物转化的能力，并恰如其分地引出他的公开事工；使五千人吃饱的神迹，表明他是生命之粮，为无数信徒提供属灵的滋养；医治生来瞎眼的人，表明他是世界的光；使拉撒路复活，表明他是复活和生命。神奇的满网之鱼，表明门徒是得人的渔夫，并保证基督徒的劳苦直到世界末了都必结出丰硕果实。旷野中的蛇预表十字架。施洗约翰指着他说，他是上帝的羔羊，除去世人罪孽的。他以门、好牧人、葡萄树这些富有深意的形象表明自己；自此以后，这些形象便不断启发基督教的艺术和诗歌，并引导教会的默想。

整个旧约都是新约的预表和预言。“律法本是藉着摩西传的；恩典和真理都是由耶稣基督来的”（1:17）。基督教远为优越之处正在于此；然而，犹太教作为救赎计划中不可或缺的一部分，其重大意义也正在于此。约翰虽然鲜明而有力地揭示了与不信的犹太人之间的对立，却远没有走到诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 那种拒绝或贬低旧约的极端；恰恰相反，“救恩是从犹太人出来的”（这是基督对撒马利亚妇人说的，4:22）。文士和法利赛人查考圣经的字句，却忽略其精神；基督便反过来以圣经为论据，用他们所寄望的摩西的权威质问他们：“你们如果信摩西，也必信我；因为他书上有指着我写的话。你们若不信他的书，怎能信我的话呢？”（5:46）。约翰在那些不能废去的古代经书中，处处看见基督。他阐明真正的弥赛亚观念，与犹太人在宗教领袖引导之下对这一观念所作属肉体的歪曲相抗争。

约翰与对观福音书所记基督的讲论

约翰着重记载那些论述基督的位格，以及他与父、世界和门徒之关系的超卓讲论。他的话是见证，显明他位格内在的荣耀；这些话就是灵，就是生命。

《马太福音》同样具有教导性质；然而，对观福音书与约翰所记耶稣的讲论，在内容和风格上有显著的差异。前者讨论弥赛亚国度的性质、律法的成全，以及圣洁顺服的本分，通俗、切实、简短、警策，多用格言、比喻和谚语；后者触及神学和基督论 (Christology) 最深的奥秘，富于形而上的意味，篇幅较长，容易被人按属肉体的意思误解，而其文风与约翰在序言和第一封书信中自己的文风，以及施洗约翰的文风，几乎难以分辨。在《约翰福音》3:16和3:31，二者之间的过渡几乎不易察觉。

在这里，我们触及了约翰问题的主要难点。怀疑派批判的有力之处就在这里。我们必须一开始就坦然承认，约翰在重述夫子的话时，不自觉地把这些话塑造成了自己思想和表达的形式。他在心中一再反复思量这些话；这些话是他每日的粮食，也是他每逢主日教导各教会的主题；然而，他必须翻译、浓缩、铺陈并应用这些话；在这一过程中，他自己的默想或多或少地与他的回忆交融，是不可避免的。他的记忆力虽然极为坚韧，但相隔如此漫长的岁月（事情发生之后五六十年），要他把每一篇讲论都照着当时所说的逐字记录下来，是不可能的；而且他也没有作这样的声称，反倒暗示自己有所选择和概述。

这是对此事的自然看法；如今，凡捍卫约翰著作权、却不持魔术式默示理论的人，都作同样的承认。他们不会违背圣经作者自己的明确陈述——如路加序言中的陈述——把他们变成不加思索的机器。但我们否认，这种承认意味着牺牲历史的真实性，或抹去基督面貌上的任何一个特征。批评家通常把这里的困难说得过大；我们对基督的评价越高，越仔细地在适当的关联中考察这些差异，困难就变得越小。以下几点思考将有助于研究者：

首先，我们必须记得，基督的心智具有何等奇妙的高度、深度和广度；这一点在对观福音书中和在约翰笔下一样清楚。他掌握着宗教和道德真理的全部领域；从来没有像他这样说话的，众人都希奇他的教训（《马太福音》7:28、29；《马可福音》1:22；6:2；《路加福音》4:32；《约翰福音》7:46）。他不但向自己那一代人说话，也藉着他们向各时代、各阶层的人说话。他的听众常常误解他，就不足为奇了。对观福音书和约翰一样，也记载了这种误解的例子（比较《马可福音》8:16）。然而，在教训的内容和形式上，谁能限制他的能力和施教的智慧呢？他向加利利 (Galilee) 的平民讲话，如对观福音书所记的，与他向耶路撒冷那些有学问而骄傲的宗教领袖讲话，如约翰所记的，难道不必采用不同的方式吗？又如他事工开始时在山上讲话，邀请众人进入弥赛亚的国度，与他面对那伟大牺牲、在楼房中向门徒告别时讲话，难道不也如此吗？色诺芬 (Xenophon) 与柏拉图 (Plato) 笔下的苏格拉底 (Socrates) 看来大不相同，然而我们在二者笔下都能认出他来。但这里有一位远比苏格拉底更大的。¹⁸⁹
约翰的心智在最柔顺、最易受塑造的时期，已经如此效法基督的心意，以致他自己的思想和言语忠实地反映了夫子的教训。若说两个人的心灵之间曾有属灵的感通和契合，那就是耶稣与他所爱、并托付照顾他母亲之责的那位门徒之间的关系。约翰比任何基督徒、也比任何一位对观福音书作者都更亲近他的主。“为什么不能是约翰以耶稣为模范而受塑造，反倒非得是他福音书中的耶稣成为他自己形象的反照呢？即便只采用最低限度的假设，也尽可让一切公正的心灵来判断：究竟是耶稣富于创造力的心智，更可能把门徒塑造成与自己相似的人，还是门徒善于领受的心灵，更可能凭自己的努力，产生出那样一种救赎主的观念——这观念无限地超越了人自己所创造的最高形象？”¹⁹⁰
约翰是从住在他里面的基督之灵的丰盛中重述这些讲论的，因此在思想上没有任何偏离。整个福音历史都以此为前提：基督在地上并未完成他的工作，而只是开始这工作；他在天上仍藉着自己所拣选的器皿继续工作，并曾应许赐给他们口才、智慧（《路加福音》21:15；《马太福音》10:19），且常与他们同在（《马太福音》19:20；28:20）。事实与思想那不可抗拒的逻辑，使门徒越来越确信基督超乎常人的本性。在他们看来，他在地上的生活是一种暂时的降卑状态；此前，他已先存于与父同在的荣耀之中；此后，他复活升天，便进入永远的荣耀状态。他还有“好些事”没有告诉他们，因为在他得荣耀以前，他们担当不了（《约翰福音》16:12）。“我所做的，”他对彼得说，“你如今不知道，后来必明白”（13:7）。他一些最深刻的话，门徒起初曾误解，后来因复活而得以明白（2:22；12:16），再因圣灵的浇灌而得到光照；圣灵从基督的丰盛中领受，将其告诉门徒（16:13、14）。因此，临别讲论充满了关于真理之灵的应许；这灵要在他们心中荣耀基督。在这样的引导之下，我们完全可以确信，约翰的记载在实质上是忠实的。
在表面的相似之下，基督的语言与他门徒的语言之间，仍有相当大的差别。约翰从未把他在序言和第一封书信中突出使用的“道” (Logos) 这一称谓，归于基督自己的言辞。这一点极有意义，表明他本着良心谨慎从事。他把自己的神学与夫子的教训分别开来，不论“道” (Logos) 一词是借自斐洛 (Philo)（这无法证明），还是他自己默想旧约中隐藏的上帝与启示的上帝之间的区分，以及基督自己关于他与父之关系的见证，而创用的。《约翰一书》是他福音书的回响，但也有他自己独创的内容，并且针对当日反基督的谬误作了论辩。韦斯科特 (Westcott) 说：“福音书中的语句具有明确的历史联系：它们属于某些具体处境，而这些处境解释了它们。书信中的语句，一部分是概括，一部分则是根据基督已经完成的工作，以及基督教会的经验，对早先话语所作的解释。”

至于第四福音书中施洗约翰的讲论，正如同一位作者所指出的，都严格限于旧约所提示的范围之内。“他主动论到基督的话，可以归纳在‘羔羊’和‘新郎’这两个形象之中；二者合起来，以先知的意象全面呈现了弥赛亚的受苦与喜乐、救赎与成全的工作。这两个形象在《启示录》中再次出现；但极有意义的是，它们并未出现在第四福音书中主的教训里，也未出现在圣约翰的书信中。”

约翰与对观福音书、尤其《马太福音》中的讲论，在思想和风格上不乏惊人的相似之处，足以驳倒这两类教训无法调和的断言。¹⁹¹ 对观福音书作者并非全然不熟悉另一类教训。他们偶尔也上升到约翰那样的属灵高度，记载耶稣一些较简短的话；这些话若放进约翰的福音书中，也不会显得不协调。试看《马太福音》11:25–30的感恩祷告，以及向一切劳苦担重担者所发的感人邀请。《路加福音》10:22和《马太福音》11:27所记载的崇高宣告：“除了父，没有人知道子；除了子和子所愿意指示的，没有人知道父”，完全符合约翰所理解的基督的样式，也是他自己在序言中所作宣告的基础：“从来没有人看见上帝，只有在父怀里的独生子将他表明出来”（《约翰福音》1:18）。耶稣在约翰笔下所作的宣称，并不高于他在马太笔下的宣告：“天上地下所有的权柄都赐给我了”（《马太福音》28:18）。耶稣在《约翰福音》17:2所说的话几乎完全相同：“你曾赐给他权柄管理凡有血气的。”

另一方面，约翰也给我们留下不少简短精辟的东方智慧格言的例子，而这正是对观福音书中讲论的特色。¹⁹²

《约翰福音》的文体

第四福音书的文体与第二世纪教会作家的文体迥然不同，属于使徒时期。它没有使徒以后各项争论所用的神学专门术语，也不涉及教会的状况、治理和崇拜，而是始终处于第一代基督徒的氛围之中；然而，它又与对观福音书作者的文体大不相同，在世俗及宗教文学史上独树一帜，恰如其分地表现了约翰的天才：明澈而深邃，如孩童般单纯，如圣徒般成熟，忧伤却又安详，沐浴在永生与永爱之阳光中。第四福音书在词汇和语法上是纯正的希腊文，在性情和精神上却彻头彻尾是希伯来式的，甚至比其他任何一卷书更是如此；几乎可以逐字译成希伯来文，而不失其力量与优美。它具有旧约著作的种种特色：孩童般的单纯、浑然天成、丰富的想象、直截了当、详述情境，以及富有节奏的平行句式。句子简短而有分量，彼此并列，而非主从相属。句法极其简单：没有盘根错节的长句，没有承接的环节，没有逻辑论证，只有一连串不言自明的真理，仿佛出于直接的直观而宣告出来。希伯来诗歌的平行句式，在下列双句中十分明显：“我留下平安给你们；我将我的平安赐给你们”；“仆人不能大于主人；差人也不能大于差他的人”；“万物是借着他造的；凡被造的，没有一样不是借着他造的。”对比性的平行句也屡见不鲜：“光照在黑暗里，黑暗却不领会光”；“他在世界，世界却不认识他”；“他就明说，并不隐瞒”；“我又赐给他们永生，他们永不灭亡。”

作者的词汇有限，却喜爱用重复来加强语气；即使他那单调的反复，也显得庄严而感人。他使用若干意义极其深远的关键词，如道、生命、光、真理、爱、荣耀、见证、名、神迹、工作、知道、观看、相信。这些不是抽象的概念，而是具体的实在。他以涵盖广泛的对照来看世界，如生命与死亡、光明与黑暗、真理与虚谎、爱与恨、上帝与魔鬼，以及（在第一封书信中）基督与敌基督。

他避免使用祈愿语气和一切表示论证的虚词，却极常使用简单的虚词 καί^*、δέ^*、οὖν^*、ἵνα^*。在叙事部分，他最具特色的虚词是“所以”（οὖν^*）；在他的用法中，这个词不表示三段论式的推理（不像 ἄρα^* 及其复合词），而只是表示接续和回顾（如“于是”“那时”，或德文的“nun”），却仍含有凡事发生皆有原因的意思；而“为要”（ἵνα^*）这一虚词则表明，凡事发生皆有目的。他避免使用关系代词，宁愿使用连接词“和”，并重复名词，如“太初有道，和道与上帝同在，和道就是上帝……生命在他里头，和这生命就是人的光”。“和”有时取代“却”，如“光照在黑暗里，和黑暗不领会光”（《约翰福音》1:5）。

我们在其中找不到教会、福音、悔改（μετάνοια^*）这些重要词语，但其实际内容却以不同形式存在。他甚至不用名词“信心”（πίστις^*），这词在对观福音书和保罗的著作中屡次出现；但他使用动词“相信”（πιστεύειν^*）达九十八次，约为三部对观福音书合计使用次数的两倍。

他用意义深长的“逻各斯”（Logos，即 ratio〔理性〕与 oratio〔言语〕）一词，称呼那启示并阐明上帝的基督（1:18），但仅见于序言；他也使用“世界的光”“生命的粮”“好牧人”“葡萄树”“道路”“真理”和“生命”等比喻性称谓。只有他在救主的讲论中使用叠说的“实实在在”。他称圣灵为信徒的“保惠师”（Paraclete）或“辩护者”（Advocate），在地上为他们申辩，正如基督在天上宝座前为他们申辩一样。全书洋溢着沉静安详、平和安息的气息，仿佛来自天上永恒的居所。¹⁹³

这样的文体，能与使徒以后冒使徒之名虚构作品的假说相容吗？我们有大量虚构的福音书，但它们与第四部正典福音书的差别，犹如午夜的黑暗与正午的光明。

作者

将近十八个世纪以来，各宗派的基督教会一直享用第四福音书，丝毫不疑它是使徒约翰的作品。但在十九世纪，这座堡垒受到日益猛烈的攻击；攻守双方的争战，至今仍在最有才干的学者之间激烈进行。这是建设性批判与破坏性批判之间生死攸关的问题。若能证明第四福音书确为蒙爱门徒约翰的真作，就会给予那种以神话和传说来重构并摧毁基督生平及使徒历史的做法以致命一击。最终的结果不容怀疑。反对者不得不逐步退让，把第四福音书已在教会中为人所知并使用的年代，从170年推回第二世纪之初；也就是说，推回到约翰的许多门徒和朋友，以及其他亲眼见过基督生平事迹的人仍然在世的时候。¹⁹⁴

I. 证明约翰为作者的外部证据，其有力程度不亚于、甚至超过证明古代任何一位古典作家著作真伪的证据，而且可以上溯至第二世纪之初，与约翰尚在人世的时期近得声息可通。其中包括大公教会作家、异端和异教敌人的见证。只有一个几乎听不见的异议之声，来自无足轻重的阿罗吉派（Alogi）；他们反对约翰的逻各斯教义（其名称即由此而来，兼有“不合乎理性”和“反逻各斯异端”两重意义），竟荒谬地把《约翰福音》和《启示录》都归于约翰的敌人、诺斯替派的克林妥（Cerinthus）。¹⁹⁵ 现在让我们简要综述主要的见证。

大公教会的见证。我们从第四世纪开始，逐步上溯至约翰的时代。所有古代希腊文新约抄本，包括出自君士坦丁（Constantine）时代、以第二世纪更古老抄本为依据的西奈抄本（Sinaitic）和梵蒂冈抄本（Vatican），以及所有古代译本，包括第三及第二世纪的叙利亚文译本和古拉丁文译本，都无一例外地包含《约翰福音》；虽然《别西大译本》（Peshito）没有他的第二、第三封书信和《启示录》。这些抄本和译本代表了众教会普遍一致的声音。

其次，我们有全体希腊及拉丁教父公认的个别见证，可以上溯至第二世纪中叶，没有一个异议或怀疑的声音：哲罗姆（Jerome，卒于419年）和优西比乌（Eusebius，卒于340年），他们面前拥有尼西亚会议以前的全部文献；埃及的俄利根（Origen，卒于254年），他是当时最博学的学者，也是《约翰福音》的注释者；北非的德尔图良（Tertullian，约200年），他在教义上属于大公教会，在纪律上属于孟他努派（Montanist），并热心拥护约翰所宣告的保惠师之施行；亚历山大的革利免（Clement of Alexandria，约190年），他是一位富有修养的哲学家，曾游历希腊、意大利、叙利亚和巴勒斯坦，到处寻求宗教教益；爱任纽（Irenaeus），小亚细亚人，自178年起任里昂（Lyons）主教，是坡旅甲的门徒，也是约翰本人的再传弟子，他反对诺斯替异端的主要弹药取自第四福音书，并且说四部正典福音书——不多也不少——为当时的众教会普遍接受；安提阿的提阿非罗（Theophilus of Antioch，180年），他明确以约翰之名引用第四福音书；¹⁹⁶ 《穆拉托利正典》（Muratorian Canon，170年），记述约翰应朋友和门徒的恳请而撰写福音书的缘起；叙利亚的他提安（Tatian，155–170年），他在《致希腊人书》（Address to the Greeks）中反复引用第四福音书，虽未提及作者姓名；他的《四福音合参》（Diatessaron）以约翰的序言开篇，这部书虽出于一位略有诺斯替倾向的作者之手，却曾在教会中广泛流传，叙利亚的以法莲（Ephraem）还为它作过注释。¹⁹⁷ 从他再往上一步，便是他的老师、殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr），一位巴勒斯坦人（103–166年），在哈德良（Hadrian）及安敦尼诸帝（Antonines）统治时期，是信仰的一位勇敢而高尚的捍卫者。在他的两篇《护教辞》（Apologies）及《与犹太人特利丰对话》（Dialogue with Trypho the Jew）中，他常以使徒“回忆录”或“使徒纪事”的名称，自由引用四福音书；这些书在他那个时代的公共崇拜中宣读。¹⁹⁸ 他使用《马太福音》最多，但至少有一次，他引用了基督与尼哥底母对话中有关重生的一段话，¹⁹⁹ 这段话只有约翰记载。游斯丁对约翰的其他几处暗引也确凿无疑；而他关于先存的逻各斯在道成肉身以前，已在犹太人和外邦人中撒下宝贵真理种子的全部教义，无疑源于约翰。若将这关系颠倒过来，就无异于说阳光来自月亮，或泉源来自它的一条支流。

但我们还可以上溯得更远。所谓使徒教父留下的少量著作，很少提及新约，而是流露着原始口传传统的气息。《十二使徒遗训》（Didache）的作者十分熟悉《马太福音》。《革利免一书》与保罗有很深的亲缘关系。伊格那丢（Ignatius）的短篇书信显示出约翰基督论的影响。²⁰⁰ 坡旅甲（Polycarp，公元155年以高龄去世）是约翰亲授的门徒，他使用过《约翰一书》，因而为福音书提供了间接的见证，因为这两卷书的真伪必须同立同倒。²⁰¹ 帕皮亚（Papias，约150年去世）的情形也相同；他曾与坡旅甲一同学习，很可能也听过约翰的教导。他“采用了约翰前一封书信中的见证”。²⁰² 他列举自己青年时代搜集其口传话语的使徒时，将约翰移出通常的先后次序，与同为福音书作者的马太并列，又将“安得烈、彼得和腓力”按《约翰福音》1:40–43的次序排列；因此，也有人推断他知道第四福音书。我们有某些理由可以设想，那段关于行淫时被拿妇人的争议经文，是他为说明《约翰福音》8:15而记下的；因为据优西比乌所述，他在现已散佚的著作中曾提到一个类似的故事。²⁰³ 这些事实合在一起，至少使帕皮亚熟悉《约翰福音》成为极有可能的事。²⁰⁴ 坡旅甲和帕皮亚的共同见证，代表了约翰晚年劳作之地的约翰学派；这一传承又通过以弗所（Ephesus）的波利克拉底（Polycrates）、撒狄（Sardis）的米利都（Melito）、希耶罗波利斯（Hieropolis）的克劳狄·亚波里拿留（Claudius Apollinaris），以及高卢（Gaul）南部的波提努斯（Pothinus）和爱任纽延续下来。说一部伪造的福音书竟能冒用他们所敬重的属灵父辈和祖辈之名，被偷偷混入众教会，简直不可思议。

最后，附录的末节《约翰福音》21:24，是约翰若干亲密朋友和门徒所作的更早见证；他们或许正是古代传统所说敦促他写福音书的那些人。此书原先大概以这句话结束：“为这些事作见证，并且记载这些事的，就是这门徒。”众长老随后以复数加上他们的证明：“并且我们知道他的见证是真的。”一部文学虚构作品，不会因一则匿名附言而增色。这些话照目前的样子来看，若不是假约翰所作的假见证，就是首先收到真约翰的书、并在他生前或死后将其公布的朋友们所作的真见证。

整个大公教会凡在这个问题上留下声音的，都赞成约翰是作者。相反的意见，除了一点之外，连丝毫证据也没有；而这一点又纯属消极论据，不能定论。鲍尔 (Baur) 直到最后，仍极力强调第二世纪错综复杂的逾越节争论，以此证明约翰不可能写过第四福音书：因为当时有人援引约翰为权威，支持在尼散月十四日庆祝主餐；而第四福音书却与对观福音书正面矛盾，把钉十字架的日期定在那一天（而不是十五日），并将基督描绘为真正的逾越节羔羊，恰在作为预表的犹太逾越节羔羊被宰杀的时候被杀。但首先，有些最卓越的学者知道如何使约翰的记载与对观福音书所记尼散月十五日钉十字架的日期协调一致；其次，根本没有证据表明，使徒约翰曾与十四日派 (Quartodecimans) 一同在尼散月十四日庆祝复活节，以纪念主餐之日。争论在于：基督徒庆祝逾越节，应按月中的日期，即遵循犹太人的历法，还是按基督受死那一日在一周中的日次。前一种办法会使复活节像犹太人的逾越节一样，成为日期固定的节期，更为便利；后一种，即罗马的惯例，则使它成为日期不固定的节期，而这一惯例在尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea) 上取得了胜利。²⁰⁵

2. 异端的见证。鉴于他们与大公教会教义的分歧，这些见证就更为重要。值得注意的是，异端似乎比大公教会的作家更早使用并注释第四福音书。《伪克莱门讲道集》(Clementine Homilies) 除了几处暗引，还十分明确地引用了生来瞎眼之人的故事，即《约翰福音》9:2、3。²⁰⁶ 第二世纪的诺斯替派 (Gnostics)，尤其是瓦伦廷派 (Valentinians) 和巴西利得派 (Basilidians)，大量使用第四福音书；这部书的历史实在性使他们反感，其理想性与神秘性又吸引着他们。瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 的门徒赫拉克利翁 (Heracleon) 曾为此书作注，俄利根 (Origen) 保存了其中的大量摘录；瓦伦廷本人（据德尔图良所述）则力图借解释消解其意义，或将自己的意思强加于其中。约在公元125年活跃的巴西利得 (Basilides)，曾引用《约翰福音》中的经文，如“那照亮一切人的真光，正在来到世上”（约翰福音1:9），以及“我的时候还没有到”（2:4）。²⁰⁷

这些异端的见证，单凭自身就几乎足以定论。诺斯替派本来宁愿因教义上的反对而全盘拒绝第四福音书，正如马吉安 (Marcion) 实际所做的那样。他们当然不会从大公教会手中接受这部书，正如教会不会从诺斯替派手中接受它一样。双方在如此早的年代共同接受这部福音书，便是其真实作者身份的确证。阿博特博士 (Dr. Abbot) 说：²⁰⁸“那个时代的诺斯替派接受它，是因为他们不得不如此。如果他们能够否认这部书的真实作者身份，从而摧毁它的权威，就绝不会承认一部只有借助最牵强的解释才能与其教义协调的书的权威。它的真实作者身份，在当时很容易查明。以弗所是东方世界的主要城市之一，是商业辐辏之地，也是小亚细亚的都会。认识使徒约翰的人，当时即使没有数千，也有数百仍然在世。这位蒙爱的门徒，是否已将自己对主生平与教训的回忆写成文字，是一个极受关注的问题。彼此如此激烈敌对的各方，在如此早的年代便接受第四福音书为他的作品，这一事实证明，其真实作者身份的证据是决定性的。后来孟他努主义 (Montanistic) 争论中的对立各方，以及关于庆祝复活节日期的争论各方，都使用这部福音书，更进一步证实了这一论据。”

3. 异教徒的见证。塞尔苏斯 (Celsus) 在其反对基督教的著作中，从四福音书取材进行攻击，虽然并未说出作者的姓名。此书约写于公元178年（据凯姆〔Keim〕的考订，他根据俄利根驳论中保存的片段重构了此书）。塞尔苏斯提到了几项约翰独有的细节，其中包括耶稣钉十字架时从身体流出的血（约翰福音19:34），以及基督“死后复起，显出他受刑的痕迹，以及他的双手怎样被刺穿”（20:25、27）这一事实。²⁰⁹

鲍尔曾断然声称，第二世纪最后二十五年以前，找不到第四福音书的明确踪迹；这一激进的断言如今已彻底破产。随着《哲学论》(Philosophumena) 中许多诺斯替派引文、《伪克莱门讲道集》末卷，以及他提安《四福音合参》的叙利亚文注释相继被发现，一个顽强的事实显露出来：第二世纪中叶以前，甚至一直上溯到该世纪之初，这部福音书已被使用，也被滥用。面对这些发现，连鲍尔自己最优秀的门徒，也不得不一再让步。在那样的时代，根本不可能把一部伪托使徒的虚构作品，误认为使徒时期那位元老的真正著作。

内部证据。这些证据更为有力，最终使人只能在真实与欺诈之间作出选择。

先从第四福音书的文体说起。我们已经看到，它完全独具一格，在使徒后时期的文献中无可比拟。无论在思想与表达方式、意象与象征、句子的对称结构，还是叙事的朴素与详尽上，都流露出一位希伯来人中的希伯来人的本色，浸透着旧约的精神；但他又因长期居住在希腊人中间，而熟悉纯正的希腊文。这正是我们对居于以弗所的约翰所应有的预期。他虽不像保罗那样是拉比学者，却熟悉希伯来文圣经，并不依赖《七十士译本》(Septuagint)。他总共引用旧约十四次。²¹⁰ 其中四处与希伯来文及《七十士译本》一致；三处与希伯来文一致，而与《七十士译本》不同（6:45；13:18；19:37）；其余则属中性，或与两者皆同，或与两者皆异，或与其说是引用，不如说是自由改写；但没有一处与《七十士译本》一致而与希伯来文不同。²¹¹

在使徒后时期的作家中，除了赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 或许是个例外，并没有归信的犹太人；也没有人既能读希伯来文，又能写带有希伯来语色彩的希腊文。耶路撒冷毁灭以后，教会终于与会堂分离，双方都采取了毫不妥协的敌对态度。

作者是一位巴勒斯坦的犹太人。他在不经意间，毫不费力地提供了无可误认的证据，表明自己对耶路撒冷毁灭以前的圣地及其居民有着细致入微的了解。他对圣城及其附近各处了如指掌。他将毕士大 (Bethesda) 描述为“靠近羊门的一个池子，有五个廊子”（5:2），将西罗亚 (Siloam) 描述为“一个池子，翻出来就是奉差遣”（9:7），说所罗门的廊子“在殿里”（10:23），又说汲沦溪 (Kedron) 那里“有一个园子”（18:1）；他知道衙门的位置（18:28），知道厄巴大 (Gabbatha，19:13) 和各各他 (Golgotha，19:17) 的含义，知道伯大尼 (Bethany) 离耶路撒冷“约有十五斯他丢”（11:18），并将它与约旦河外的伯大尼区别开来（1:28）。他指出了希律重建圣殿工程开始的年代（2:19）。他同样熟悉巴勒斯坦的其他地区，并不犯外国人常犯的那些错误。他把迦拿 (Cana) 定位在加利利（2:1；4:26；21:2），以区别于另一处迦拿；把哀嫩 (Aenon) 定位在“靠近撒冷 (Salim)”，那里“水多”（3:23）；把叙加 (Sychar) 定位在撒马利亚，靠近“雅各井”，可以望见基利心山 (Mount Gerizim，4:5)。他知道提比哩亚湖 (Lake of Tiberias) 的广度（6:19）；他将伯赛大 (Bethsaida) 描述为“安得烈和彼得的城”（1:44），以区别于约旦河东岸的伯赛大朱利亚斯 (Bethsaida Julias)；他还把拿撒勒描述为一个出了名的微不足道之地（1:46）。

他十分熟悉犹太人那些政治与宗教混杂、纷乱不清的弥赛亚观念和期望（1:19–28、45–49；4:25；6:14、15；7:26；12:34及其他经文）；熟悉犹太人与撒马利亚人之间的敌意（4:9、20、22；8:48）；熟悉犹太人的习俗与礼仪，如洗礼（1:25；3:22、23；4:2）、洁净礼（2:6；3:25等）、礼仪上的污秽（18:28）、节期（2:13、23；5:1；7:37等）、割礼与安息日（7:22、23）。他也熟悉婚礼与葬礼的仪式（2:1–10；11:17–44），熟悉法利赛人的性格及其在公会中的影响，也知道亚那与该亚法的关系。布雷特施奈德 (Bretschneider) 指责他把大祭司的职位说成一年一任，其实是误解了“那一年”（11:49、51；18:13）这个措辞；作者所指的是基督为百姓的罪而死的那个值得纪念的年头。

作者是所叙述大多数事件的目击者。这可从他对故事中人物栩栩如生的熟悉看出来：施洗约翰、彼得、安得烈、腓力、拿但业、多马、加略人犹大、彼拉多、该亚法、亚那、尼哥底母、马大和马利亚、抹大拉的马利亚、撒马利亚妇人，以及那生来瞎眼的人；也可从那些显露亲见经历的细微特征和生动详情看出来。他顺便提及对观福音书作者所省略的事：那卖主的是“西门的儿子”（6:71；12:4；13:2、26），多马又称“低土马”（11:16；20:24；21:2）；另一方面，他却只称施洗者为“约翰”（因为他自己就是另一个约翰），没有像对观福音书作者那样，十多次加上区别性的称号，以便将施洗者与西庇太的儿子区分开来。²¹² 他指出某些事件发生的日子与时辰，²¹³ 以及所提及的人物和物件的确切或大致数目。²¹⁴ 他知道门徒在某些场合的心思，知道他们对夫子话语的无知与误解，²¹⁵ 甚至知道主的动机与感受。²¹⁶

没有一位文学家能够虚构出基督与尼哥底母论属灵重生奥秘的谈话（约翰福音3章），或与撒马利亚妇人的谈话（约翰福音4章），或那生来瞎眼的人受盘问时富有特色的细节；这些细节如此自然地显出犹太教权贵傲慢无情的偏执，以及瞎子和他父母那粗朴、直率的诚实与常识（9:13–34）。《约翰福音》4章描写的雅各井旁的场景，为基利心山与以巴路山 (Ebal) 脚下的自然与人生，呈现了一幅极其生动却毫不矫饰的图画；那里虽已衰败，这幅景象却至今犹存：雅各井就在那肥沃而水源充足的谷地中，撒马利亚人的圣所就在基利心山顶，随风起伏的庄稼正渐渐成熟，等待收割；我们面对着犹太人与撒马利亚人历史上的对立，这种对立在今日的纳布卢斯 (Nablus) 仍然存在；我们在那里看见耶稣真实的人性，他“因走路困乏”而坐下，却并未厌倦自己的工作；看见他超越了拉比禁止与妇人交谈的偏见，看见他超人的知识与尊严；也看见这位撒马利亚的抹大拉女子的好奇与机敏。而从雅各井的水转到生命之水，从敬拜地点的激烈争论转到上帝乃是无所不在的灵这一至高观念，以及以心灵和诚实真正敬拜他，这一过渡又是何等自然。²¹⁷

作者明确自称是基督生平的目击者。他与对观福音书作者不同，后者从不使用第一人称，也不将自己的主观感受掺入叙事。他说：“我们也见过他的荣光”；他是在代表全体使徒和最初的门徒，陈述道成肉身的逻各斯 (Logos) 住在他们中间给他们留下的总体印象。²¹⁸ 在与第四福音书不可分离、相辅而行的《约翰一书》的平行经文中，他又郑重强调，他亲自认识那道成肉身的生命之道，是他亲耳听过、亲眼看过、亲手摸过的（约翰一书1:1–3）。这一断言是概括性的，涵盖了我们主整个公开生活。但他也在一个对于基督人性之真实性特别重要的具体事例中作了这样的断言：在记述血和水从受伤的肋旁流出来时，他着重补充说：“那看见这事的就作见证，他的见证也是真的；并且他知道自己所说的是真的，叫你们也可以信”（约翰福音19:35）。在这里，我们只能作出二者择一的判断：作者要么是所叙述之事的真实见证人，要么就是蓄意写下谎言的假见证人。
最后，作者暗示自己是十二使徒之一，是那三位蒙特别眷爱的门徒之一；他不是彼得，也不是雅各，而正是那位曾靠在夫子怀里的蒙爱者约翰。他从不提自己的名字，也不提哥哥雅各或母亲撒罗米 (Salome) 的名字，却以一种极其谦逊、细腻而又完全独特的方式间接指称自己。他站在自己的福音书后面，仿佛一个面蒙薄纱的神秘人物，却始终不曾揭开面纱。他让读者综合各处线索，推知他的名字。他无疑就是那位未具名的门徒，曾在约旦河边因施洗者的见证，与安得烈一同被引到耶稣面前（1:35–40）；就是最后晚餐时“坐席靠在耶稣怀里”的门徒（13:23–25）；就是与彼得一同跟随耶稣进入大祭司院子的“另一个门徒”（18:15、16）；就是站在十字架旁，受临终的主托付照顾他母亲的那位门徒（19:26、27）；也是复活那天清晨，与彼得一同来到空坟墓，看见细麻布和裹头巾另在一处卷着，便确信那伟大事实的“耶稣所爱的那另一个门徒”（20:2–8）。所有这些叙述都交织着自传性的细节。他称自己为“耶稣所爱的那门徒”，并非出于虚荣（某些批评家竟极其奇怪地如此断言），而是怀着蒙福而感恩的心，追念他神圣的夫子那无限的怜悯；夫子由此应验了他的名字约哈难 (Johanan) 所包含的预言，即“耶和华有恩惠”。对他而言，他那至爱的主所赐的这份特殊的爱，概括了他一生的全部意义。

他对家人的称呼也与这种自称方式相应：那位站在十字架旁、未具名的耶稣“母亲的姊妹”（约翰福音19:25），很可能就是指他的母亲，因为据对观福音书记载，撒罗米当时在那里，而约翰不大会略去这一事实；在耶稣于加利利湖向之显现的门徒名单中，“西庇太的两个儿子”列在最后（21:2），但在所有对观福音书的使徒名单中，他们却都与彼得、安得烈同列十二使徒之首。这一差异只能用体贴与谦逊的动机来解释。

这位作者与第二、第三世纪那些冒名的文学伪造者，形成了何等鲜明的对照！那些人肆无忌惮地把自己的著作托名于使徒或其他受尊崇的人物，好赋予这些著作虚假的魅力与权威；然而，他们却无法掩盖那在每一页上都露出痕迹的欺诈。

结论

回顾这一系列外在与内在的见证，我们不得不得出一个无可抗拒的结论：第四福音书是使徒约翰的作品。这一看法清晰明白、前后一贯，与本书的性质及使徒时期的全部历史完全相符；反之，文学虚构与虔诚欺诈的假说却自相矛盾、荒谬无理，并且自证其非。第二世纪没有任何作者能够写出这样一部奇妙的书；它远远高于殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、德尔图良 (Tertullian)、革利免 (Clement)、奥利金 (Origen)，以及任何其他教父、经院学者或宗教改革家的全部著作。第一世纪，除使徒以外没有人能写出这部书；使徒之中，除约翰以外也没有人能写出；而约翰自己若没有上帝的默示，也不可能写出。

§ 84. 约翰著作问题的批判性考察

参见§ 40的文献，第408页及后；另参霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 所述的争论史，载于本生 (Bunsen) 的《圣经注释》(Bibelwerk)，VIII. 56及后；罗伊斯 (Reuss)，《新约圣书史》(Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T.’s)，第6版，I. 248及后；戈代 (Godet)，《注释》(Com.)，第3版，I. 32及后；霍尔茨曼，《导论》(Einleitung)，第2版，第423页及后；魏斯 (Weiss)，《导论》(Einleitung)，1886年，第609页及后。

我们已经在不断参照近来反对意见的同时，提出了自己对此问题的看法；鉴于这一题目的重要性，现在有必要另设一节，讨论对第四福音书的反对。

问题的提出

约翰著作问题，是现代新约批判领域中一个炽热的争论问题。它一方面起于约翰与对观福音书作者之间的差异，另一方面起于第四福音书与《启示录》之间的差异。

I. 这一问题的对观福音书方面，包括前三位福音书作者与第四位作者在基督传道的地域与时间长短、基督的形象、他讲论的性质与篇幅，以及若干次要细节上的差异。对此有以下几种可能的看法：

(1.) 对观福音书与《约翰福音》都具有历史真实性，只是呈现同一位基督及其工作的不同方面，并在每一个实质性的要点上彼此补充、彼此印证。这是教会的信仰，也是几乎所有保守派批评家和注释家的确信。

(2.) 第四福音书是约翰的作品，而且由于他与基督的亲密关系，比对观福音书更准确、更可靠；后者含有一些来自口头传统的传说性润饰，甚至错误，必须由约翰来纠正。这是施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)、吕克 (Lücke)、布利克 (Bleek)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯，以及相当多自由派批评家和释经家的看法；不过，他们仍接受整个福音历史的实质内容为真实，并承认基督是人类的主和救主。这些学者与教会传统之间的差异并非根本性的，是可以调和的。

(3.) 对观福音书所呈现的（大体上）是历史中的基督，第四福音书所呈现的则是信仰与虚构中的理想基督。这是鲍尔 (Baur) 与图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 的看法；该派包括施韦格勒 (Schwegler)、策勒 (Zeller)、克斯特林 (Köstlin)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)、霍尔茨曼、豪斯拉特 (Hausrath)、申克尔 (Schenkel)、曼戈尔德 (Mangold)、凯姆 (Keim)、托马 (Thoma)，以及他们在法国的追随者与同情者尼古拉 (Nicolas)、戴希塔尔 (d’Eichthal)、勒南 (Renan)、雷维尔 (Réville)、萨巴蒂耶 (Sabatier)，在荷兰的朔尔滕 (Scholten) 和莱顿学派 (Leyden school)，以及在英国的《超自然宗教》(Supernatural Religion) 的匿名作者、萨姆·戴维森 (Sam. Davidson)、埃德温·A. 阿博特 (Edwin A. Abbott)。但这些批评家甚至也从对观福音书中的基督身上剔除神迹，至少尽其可能如此，因而接近第四种假说。

(4.) 对观福音书与《约翰福音》同样都是虚构，归根结底不过是神话、传说或虔诚的欺诈。这是现代批判学派极左翼的立场，主要代表人物是施特劳斯 (Strauss)。否认超自然与神迹，必然得出这一结果，因为超自然与神迹同对观福音书中的基督不可分离，正如同《约翰福音》中的基督不可分离一样；但这一立场也颠覆了一切历史，面对压倒性的事实与结果，便无法认真维持。因此，激进批评家中已出现相当显著的反响，转而赞同一种更尊重历史的立场。凯姆的《拿撒勒人耶稣史》(History of Jesus of Nazara)，虽同样持批判态度，且学识更为渊博，却比施特劳斯的《耶稣传》(Leben Jesu) 有了极大的进步；它立足于《马太福音》所代表的对观传统，与正统观点各让一步而相接近，并把这部福音书的成书年代推至公元66年。

约翰著作问题的《启示录》方面，本应在考察《启示录》时讨论，但近来它已与福音书问题不可分割地交织在一起。对此同样有四种不同的看法：

(1.) 第四福音书与《启示录》均出自使徒约翰之手，但二者题材的性质不同，作者的处境不同，写作时间又至少相隔二三十年，足以解释其情调与文体上的显著差异。公元50年，他在耶路撒冷与保罗相会时，是犹太基督教的三位“柱石使徒”之一（加拉太书2:9），但年龄可能尚不足四十岁；他深藏力量，格外沉默寡言，却又充分同情保罗，足以向他伸出相交的右手。他在公元68至70年间写《启示录》时，还不到六十岁；写福音书时，则已年逾八十。此外，两书内在的和谐，不仅足以抵消彼此的差异，而且绰绰有余。就连图宾根批评家的领袖也承认这一点，他称第四福音书为灵意化的《启示录》，或《启示录》的变容。²¹⁹

(2.) 约翰写了福音书，却没有写《启示录》。许多温和学派的批评家倾向于放弃《启示录》为他所写的看法，将它归于那位与使徒约翰同时代、身份颇有疑问而又神秘的“长老约翰”(Presbyter John)。施莱尔马赫、吕克、布利克、尼安德 (Neander)、埃瓦尔德、迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck) 等人都持此说。如果必须在两书之间作出选择，那么无疑，福音书更有充分的理由要求我们接受。

(3.) 约翰写了《启示录》，但正因如此，他不可能写第四福音书。鲍尔、勒南、戴维森、阿博特，以及几乎所有激进批评家（凯姆除外）都持此说。

(4.) 第四福音书与《启示录》都是伪作，出于诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 的克林妥 (Cerinthus) 之手（如阿洛吉派〔Alogi〕所主张的），或出于某位匿名伪造者之手。这一看法如此荒谬而毫无根据，以致没有一位在学识与判断力上享有任何声誉的批评家敢于为它辩护。

在约翰著作问题的这两个方面，各自四种可能的立场及其倡导者之间，存在着相应的关系。

这场争论的结果，将是教会信仰在实质上的胜利：教会将根据新的证据，接受四部福音书全都是真实而具有历史性的，并接受《启示录》与第四福音书均为约翰的作品。

对第四福音书的攻击

批判学派对这一问题两个方面的态度，已经完全转变。这一变化十分引人注目。博学的总监督布雷特施奈德 (Bretschneider) 于1820年首次对第四福音书的真实性发起严肃攻击时，所遭遇的反对如此强大，不仅来自奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、托卢克 (Tholuck) 这样的福音派神学家，也来自施莱尔马赫、吕克、克雷德纳 (Credner) 和肖特 (Schott)，以致几年之后（1824年和1828年），他坦诚地承认了自己的失败。²²⁰ 当施特劳斯博士在他的《耶稣传》(Leben Jesu，1835年) 中重申这一否认时，一大批新老辩护者纷纷起来，以如此有力的论据加以回应，以致他自己（正如他在1838年第三版中承认的）对自己的怀疑也有所动摇，尤其受到尼安德的分量与坦诚的影响；然而，他觉得为了自卫，仍不得不重申自己的怀疑，认定它是神话假说不可或缺的部分（见1840年第四版，以及后来1864年的通俗版《耶稣传》〔Leben Jesu〕）。

但与此同时，他的老师、图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 的领袖鲍尔博士 (Dr. Baur)，正在准备重型弹药，并率领了对约翰著作堡垒的第二次进攻，也是最大胆、最猛烈、最有效的一次进攻（自1844年起）。²²¹ 德国及其他国家一批才干卓越、眼光敏锐的批评家，在主要问题上追随他，尽管在细节上作了相当大的修改。他把第四福音书说成一部纯粹理想化的作品，产生于第二世纪中叶以后的诺斯替派 (Gnostic)、孟他努派 (Montanistic) 及逾越节争论，以炉火纯青的技巧和艺术，调和了大公信仰的各种要素。它本来无意成为历史，而是一套披着历史外衣的神学体系。这一“倾向”假说，实际上给了施特劳斯 (Strauss) 的神话理论以致命一击，因为后者排除了有意识的设计。

第三次大举进攻出于凯姆博士 (Dr. Keim) 之手（见其《拿撒勒人耶稣史》〔Geschichte Jesu von Nazara，1867年〕），受到鲍尔的启发，却也有独立的学问和判断。他有一点比鲍尔走得更远：他否认约翰居留以弗所 (Ephesus) 的全部传统，认为那是爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的错误；这样一来，他甚至拆除了为《启示录》出于约翰辩护的根基，也抵消了图宾根学派从该书取得的进攻力量。另一方面，他把成书年代从170年（鲍尔的说法）前推到图拉真 (Trajan) 在位时期，即使徒去世后不过几年的时候，因而接近了传统观点。他对以弗所传统的否认很少得到赞同，²²² 却遭到图宾根批评家的强烈反对，因为他们看出，这种否认对于《启示录》的真实性具有致命的影响。²²³ 因此，凯姆这一行动的结果，反而趋于使围攻的军队分裂，士气沮丧。

然而，这些持续不断的攻击所产生的影响如此之大，以致三位杰出的学者——耶拿 (Jena) 的哈泽 (Hase，1876年)、斯特拉斯堡 (Strassburg) 的罗伊斯 (Reuss)，以及巴黎的萨巴蒂埃 (Sabatier，1879年)——离开了防守者的营地，投向围攻者的军队。勒南 (Renan) 曾在其《耶稣传》(Vie de Jesus) 第十三版（1867年）中至少为第四福音书的一部分辩护，如今也已完全放弃了它（自1879年其《基督教会》〔L’Église chrétienne〕出版以来）。²²⁴

为第四福音书辩护

鲍尔及其学派的尖锐批判，迫使人们对整个问题重新作彻底研究，从而对真理的事业作出了极大的贡献。我们能够拥有那些最有力的辩护，维护第四福音书出于约翰，以及它所呈现的宝贵历史，实有赖于此。在抵御最近这些攻击的辩护者中，杰出的有：德国的布莱克 (Bleek)、兰格 (Lange)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、施奈德 (Schneider)、蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)、里根巴赫 (Riggenbach)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、施泰茨 (Steitz)、阿伯勒 (Aberle)、迈耶 (Meyer)、卢塔特 (Luthardt)、维瑟勒 (Wieseler)、拜施拉格 (Beyschlag)、魏斯 (Weiss)；法国的戈代 (Godet)、普雷桑塞 (Pressensé)、阿斯蒂埃 (Astié)；荷兰的尼尔迈耶 (Niermeyer)、范奥斯特泽 (Van Oosterzee)、霍夫斯泰德·德赫罗特 (Hofstede de Groot)；英国的阿尔福德 (Alford)、米利根 (Milligan)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、韦斯科特 (Westcott)、桑迪 (Sanday)、普卢默 (Plummer)；美国的费舍尔 (Fisher) 和阿博特 (Abbot)。²²⁵

值得注意的是，否定批判学派并未产生一部论述《约翰福音》的学术性注释。近来所有第四福音书的注释家（吕克〔Lücke〕、埃瓦尔德、兰格、亨斯滕贝格〔Hengstenberg〕、卢塔特、迈耶、魏斯、阿尔福德、华兹华斯〔Wordsworth〕、戈代、韦斯科特、米利根、莫尔顿〔Moulton〕、普卢默等），都赞同该书的真实性。

反对约翰著作权理论的困难

否定派批评家中流行的理论是这样的：他们承认对观福音书除神迹以外都是真实的历史，却正因如此而拒绝约翰；他们也承认《启示录》确为使徒约翰的作品——对观福音书作者把他描绘为雷子，保罗（《加拉太书》第2章）则把他列为保守的犹太基督教的三根柱石之一——却正因如此，否认他可能写出那部在文体和精神上与《启示录》如此不同的福音书。他们为这一立场援引的事实是：对观福音书和《启示录》同样拥有充分、甚至更充分的内外证据支持，而且代表了一种至少早二十年的传统。

但如此一来，第四福音书又成了什么呢？真正的约翰竟会篡改他夫子的历史，这是不可思议的；因此，署他名字的福音书便成了使徒以后时期的虚构之作，一首宗教诗，或一部以道成肉身的逻各斯 (Logos) 为主题的传奇。它成了基督教诺斯替主义的福音书，深受斐洛 (Philo) 的亚历山大哲学影响。然而，它与其他文学虚构一样，也算不得欺诈。那位不知名的作者对待对观福音书中历史上的耶稣，正如柏拉图 (Plato) 对待苏格拉底 (Socrates) 一样，不过以他作为自己崇高思辨的基础，把他从未说过的话放在他口中。

这位基督教的柏拉图究竟是谁？没有一位批评家说得出来，甚至无从猜测，只有勒南例外：他重提否认逻各斯派 (Alogi) 那种荒谬的见解，认为至少有可能，是诺斯替异端分子、约翰的敌人克林妥 (Cerinthus) 写了第四福音书。²²⁶ 这样的猜想，需要超乎寻常地伸展想象力，也需要惊人程度的轻信。批评家中较为审慎的人则假定，作者是约翰在以弗所一位才华卓越的门徒，在约翰去世以后，自由地重述并修改了他的口头教导。但坡旅甲 (Polycarp)、帕皮亚 (Papias) 及其他远不及他重要的约翰门徒，其名字都流传至今，他的名字怎么可能全然不为人知呢？这位“伟大的无名氏”确实是个谜。有些批评家对图宾根学派抱有一半的同情，愿意承认约翰本人写了此书的一部分，或是历史叙事，或是讲论；但这两种折中办法都行不通：这部书是一个整体，不是全然真实，就是全然虚构。

否定派批评家对于成书时间也没有一致意见。在论证与证据日益增大的压力之下，他们不得不一步步退却，从第二世纪最后二十五年退到最初二十五年，甚至退到约翰死后不过几年的时候，而他数以百计的听众当时仍然在世；在那时，一部伪托约翰的书不可能广泛流传而不被揭穿其欺诈。鲍尔博士和施韦格勒 (Schwegler) 把成书时间定为公元170年或160年；福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 定为155年；策勒 (Zeller) 定为150年；朔尔滕 (Scholten) 定为140年；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 定为约130年；勒南定为约125年；申克尔 (Schenkel) 定为120年或115年；最后凯姆（1867年）竟前推到110年，甚至100年。但到了这么早的年代，他又觉得为自卫计，不得不在1875年²²⁷重新后移到130年，尽管他承认殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 和早期诺斯替派的见证。这些批判上的摇摆，显出把该福音书安置在第二世纪是不可能的。

如果我们放弃第四福音书，又能换来什么呢？以虚构换事实，以石头换饼，以诺斯替派的梦幻换取最荣耀的真理。

幸而，整个否认约翰著作权的假说处处破产。它在无数细节上触礁沉没，因为这些细节根本无法纳入所假定的教义框架，却建立在历史回忆的坚实事实之上。²²⁸

这种假说非但没有消除任何困难，反而造成了更大的困难。有些矛盾，无论怎样巧辩也无法解决。如果那位“伟大的无名氏”是他理想中的基督的创造艺术家，又是那些空前绝后的崇高讲论的发明者，那么他的天才必定超过但丁 (Dante) 或莎士比亚 (Shakespeare)，甚至超过他自己笔下的主人公，也就是比最伟大者还要伟大：这在心理上是不可能的，在逻辑上是荒谬的。再者，如果他不是约翰，却想让人认他为约翰，那么他就是一个欺诈者和说谎者：²²⁹ 这在道德上是不可能的。柏拉图的情形大不相同，他与苏格拉底的关系也是众所周知的。对观福音书虽未署名，却没有欺骗读者。路加和《希伯来书》的作者，诚实地表明自己不过是使徒的门徒。真正的类似之作应当是伪经福音书和伪克莱门文献，在这些作品中，欺诈是明白无误的，但其内容远低于第四福音书，以致根本无法相提并论。古代教会中，文学虚构并非罕见，但当时的人和今日的人一样，也有常识和道德感，能够分辨事实与虚构、真理与谎言。说古代教会几乎从那位蒙爱门徒去世之日起，就受骗而一致接受这样一部重要的书，认定它是他的作品；又说整个基督教会——希腊教会、拉丁教会、新教教会，包括不可胜数的学者大军——一千八百年来一直陷于根本的迷误，把诺斯替派的梦幻误当作人类救主的真实历史，从欺诈的浑浊源头饮取生命之水，这实在令人难以置信。²³⁰

与此同时，第四福音书仍在发光，并将继续发光，如同天上的太阳，本身就是它最好的证据；待大大小小的云团消散之后，它必发出更加灿烂的光芒。

§ 85. 使徒行传

参较§ 82。

1. 批判研究论著

M. 施内肯布格尔 (M. Schneckenburger)：《使徒行传的目的》(Zweck der Apostelgeschichte)。伯尔尼 (Bern)，1841年。

施万贝克 (Schwanbeck)：《使徒行传的资料来源》(Quellen der Ap. Gesch.)。达姆施塔特 (Darmstadt)，1847年。

Ed. 策勒 (Ed. Zeller)：《使徒行传的内容与起源》(Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles)。斯图加特 (Stuttg.)，1854年；Jos. 戴尔 (Jos. Dare) 英译本，1875–76年，伦敦，2卷。

莱克布施 (Lekebusch)：《使徒行传的编纂与形成》(Composition u. Entstehung der Ap. Gesch.)。哥达 (Gotha)，1854年。

克洛斯特曼 (Klostermann)：《为路加辩护》(Vindiciae Lucancae)。哥廷根 (Göttingen)，1866年。

阿图尔·克尼希 (Arthur König，罗马天主教徒)：《使徒行传的真实性》(Die Aechtheit der Ap. Gesch.)。布雷斯劳 (Breslau)，1867年。

J. R. 厄特尔 (J. R. Oertel)：《使徒行传中的保罗：本书的历史性质》等 (Paulus in der Ap. Gesch. Der histor. Char. dieser Schrift, 等)。哈勒 (Halle)，1868年。

J. B. 莱特福特 (J. B. Lightfoot)：《从近来的发现阐明使徒行传》(Illustrations of the Acts from recent Discoveries)，载《当代评论》(Contemporary Review)，1878年5月，第288–296页。

座堂主任牧师豪森 (Dean Howson)：《论使徒行传之证据价值的博伦讲座》(Bohlen Lectures on the Evidential Value of the Acts of the Apostles)，1880年在费城讲授。伦敦及纽约，1880年。

Friedr. 齐默尔 (Friedr. Zimmer)：《加拉太书与使徒行传》(Galaterbrief und Apostelgeschichte)。希尔德布格豪森 (Hildburghausen)，1882年。

另可部分参较J. H. 朔尔滕 (J. H. Scholten)：《保罗的福音》(Das Paulinische Evangelium)，雷德彭宁 (Redepenning) 由荷兰文译出，埃尔伯费尔德 (Elberf.)，1881年。这是论路加著作的一篇批判研究论文（第254页及后）。

2. 使徒行传注释

作者有金口约翰 (Chrysotom)；哲罗姆 (Jerome)；加尔文 (Calvin)；奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)；德韦特 (De Wette，第4版由奥弗贝克〔Overbeck〕修订，1870年)；迈耶 (Meyer，第4版，1870年；第5版由文特〔Wendt〕修订，1880年)；鲍姆加滕 (Baumgarten，分2部，1852年；英译本3卷，爱丁堡，1856年)；Jos. A. 亚历山大 (Jos. A. Alexander)；H. B. 哈克特 (H. B. Hackett，第2版，1858年；第3版，1877年)；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald，1872年)；莱歇尔—格罗克 (Lecher-Gerok，收入兰格的《圣经注释》〔Bibelwerk〕，谢弗〔Schaeffer〕英译，纽约〔N. Y.〕，1866年)；F. C. 库克 (F. C. Cook，伦敦〔Lond.〕，1866年)；阿尔福德 (Alford)；华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)；格洛格 (Gloag)；普伦普特里 (Plumptre，收入埃利科特〔Ellicott〕的《注释》〔Com.〕)；雅各布森 (Jacobson，收入《议长注释》〔Speaker’s Com.〕，1880年)；伦比 (Lumby，收入《剑桥学校圣经》〔Cambridge Bible for Schools〕，1880年)；豪森和斯彭斯 (Howson and Spence，收入沙弗的《通俗注释》〔Popul. Com.〕，1880年；为《修订本注释》〔Revision Com.〕修订，纽约，1882年)；K. 施密特 (K. Schmidt，《以可信性为主要视角对使徒行传所作的批判释经研究》〔Die Apostelgesch. unter dem Hauptgesichtspunkt ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit kritisch exegetisch bearbeitet〕，埃尔朗根〔Erlangen〕，1882年，2卷)；讷斯根 (Nösgen，莱比锡〔Leipz.〕，1882年)；贝特格 (Bethge，1887年)。

使徒行传与第三福音书

《使徒行传》虽然按古代教会的分类，不列在“福音书”而列在“使徒书”之中，却是第三福音书的直接续篇，出于同一作者，也同样写给提阿非罗 (Theophilus)；后者很可能是一位社会地位显赫的基督教归信者。在前书中，作者记述自己所听见、所读到的事；在后书中，则记述自己所听见、所看见的事。一部记载基督的生平与工作，另一部记载圣灵的工作，每一步都承认圣灵的作为。“灵”或“圣灵”一词在《使徒行传》中出现的次数，比《新约》任何其他一卷都多。称它为“圣灵的福音书”，实在恰如其分。

古代教会一致见证，这两卷书出于同一作者。两书文体相同、叙事相续、布局相应，这些内部证据也证实了这一点。两书共有约五十个词，是《新约》其他地方所没有的。²³¹

宗旨与内容

《使徒行传》与第三福音书一样，是一卷洋溢喜乐、鼓舞人心的书；其中充满宣教的热忱与盼望；它记述一次又一次的进展，一次又一次的征服，甚至把逼迫与殉道也化为喜乐和感恩的契机。这是第一部教会史。它始于耶路撒冷，终于罗马。若再添一章，很可能就会记述尼禄可怕的逼迫，以及保罗和彼得英勇的殉道。但那样一来，这卷书便成了悲剧；实际却不然，它的结尾与开头一样，充满喜乐与得胜。

它展现基督教的起源，以及从犹太教都城向异教都城发展的历程。它记述彼得在犹太人中、保罗在外邦人中建立教会的历史。其主题表达在复活的基督对门徒的应许中（《使徒行传》1:8）：“圣灵降临在你们身上，你们就必得着能力（《使徒行传》第2章）；并要在耶路撒冷（第3–7章）、犹太全地和撒马利亚（第8–12章），直到地极，作我的见证”（第13–28章）。《路加福音》是保罗式的福音书，它表明救恩虽出于犹太人，又遭犹太人反对，却是为所有人，包括撒马利亚人和外邦人预备的，由此奠定了基础。《使徒行传》则展现教会如何借着彼得的事工，继而借着司提反的事工、腓利在撒马利亚的事工，再借着彼得使哥尼流归信的事工，最后借着保罗及其同伴的劳苦，从犹太人中兴起，并由犹太人传向外邦人。²³²

《使徒行传》以基督升天，即登上宝座，以及他借着圣灵的浇灌建立国度为开端；以外邦人的使徒在当时已知世界的首都欢然传道为结束。

客观地展现教会的进展，是本书的首要目的，主观性和传记性的成分完全居于从属地位。在第一部分，即犹太基督教部分的主角彼得，以及第二部分，即外邦基督教部分的主角保罗面前，其余使徒都退居幕后；除了约翰、年长的雅各、司提反和主的兄弟雅各以外，其余人的名字都只提过一次。甚至这些柱石使徒的生平，也只在与宣教工作有关的范围内才进入这段历史。从这一角度看，本书长期通行的书名并不完全准确，虽与古代的惯例相合（例如伪经文献中就有《彼拉多行传》《彼得保罗行传》《腓利行传》等）；这个书名并非作者所题，而是别人加上的。全书五分之三以上的篇幅都用于记述保罗，尤其是他后期的工作和旅程，这些事作者能够凭亲身所知来叙述。本书不过是彼得和保罗传记回忆的选录，内容关乎基督教的建立，或教会的肇始（Origines Ecclesiae）。

史料来源

路加 (Luke) 是保罗忠实的学生和同伴，极其适合撰写原始教会的历史。在撰写第一部分时，他不仅得到口传传统的帮助，也如编写福音书时一样，得到巴勒斯坦文献的帮助。因此，《使徒行传》前几章带有希伯来色彩；而后文的希腊文则十分纯正，如同他那篇具有古典风格的福音书序言。第二部分的大多数事件，都是他亲眼看见的。因此，他常用复数人称说话，谦逊地把自己包括在内。²³³这些“我们”段落始于《使徒行传》16:10，当时保罗从特罗亚 (Troas) 启程前往马其顿 (Macedonia，公元51年)；保罗离开腓立比 (Philippi) 前往哥林多时（17:1），这些段落便中断；七年后（58年），他再次访问马其顿时，这些段落又恢复（20:5、6），此后一直延续到叙事结束（公元63年）。路加很可能在腓立比住了数年，从事宣教工作，直到保罗回来。把中间分别的时期也计算在内，他与保罗相伴至少有十二年。保罗最后一次被囚、殉道前不久，他又在保罗身边，是保罗最忠实、最尽心的同伴（《提摩太后书》4:11）。

写作时间

路加很可能在随保罗于希腊宣教的旅途中，就开始撰写《使徒行传》，或先作日记，尤其是在腓立比，他似乎曾在那里逗留数年；他在凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 继续写作，在那里，他有最好的机会，从耶路撒冷，以及哥尼流和他的朋友、住在凯撒利亚的腓利和他的女儿们这些活着的见证人那里，搜集早期历史的可靠资料；他在保罗第一次被囚于罗马之后不久完成此书，时间在64年夏天那场可怕的逼迫之前，因为他几乎不可能对此只字不提。

我们在书中找不到任何对这场逼迫、保罗或彼得殉道、他们任何一封书信、耶路撒冷被毁、教会后期组织，或主教地位高于长老的暗示（参《使徒行传》20:17、28）；至于诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 异端，也只在预言性的警告中提及（20:30）。若假定本书写于公元70年以后，甚至64年以后，那么这样一部历史著作的沉默，似乎就无法解释。但若把写作时间置于保罗殉道以前，那么，最后一节终究是这部从耶路撒冷到罗马的基督教宣教史的恰当结语。因为外邦人的使徒就在文明世界的心脏地带放胆、自由地作见证，正是得胜的标志和保证。

使徒行传与福音书

《使徒行传》是福音书与书信之间的纽带。它以基督生平的主要事件为前提，并加以证实，而教会正是建立在这些事件之上的。使徒们所见证的复活事实，使全书洋溢着振奋人心的喜乐和得胜的气息。上帝使耶稣从死里复活，大有能力地宣告他是弥赛亚，是生命的主，是以色列的救主；这就是彼得讲道的中心，而他不久之前还曾否认自己的夫子。他在五旬节的讲道中，在公会面前，在哥尼流面前，都放胆为此作见证。保罗也是如此，他在彼西底的安提阿 (Antioch in Pisidia)、帖撒罗尼迦 (Thessalonica) 讲话时，在亚略巴古 (Areopagus) 面对雅典哲学家时，以及在凯撒利亚面对非斯都 (Festus) 和亚基帕 (Agrippa) 时，都强调复活；若没有复活，他自己的归信也绝不可能发生。

使徒行传与书信

《使徒行传》向我们提供使徒教会的外部历史；书信则呈现同一教会的内部生活。二者在一切要点上都有一系列吻合之处，彼此补充，彼此印证。这些吻合并非刻意安排，并且伴随着次要细节上的些微差异，因此更加具有说服力。佩利会吏长 (Archdeacon Paley) 在《保罗书信考证》（Horae Paulinae）中专门讨论了这些吻合之处；²³⁴此书将与詹姆斯·史密斯 (James Smith) 的《圣保罗的航行与海难》（Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul）并列，长久居于经典专著之列。对具有健全常识和公正判断力的读者而言，这两部书所提供的论据，足以平息大多数针对《使徒行传》可信性的批判异议。没有丝毫迹象表明，路加读过保罗十三封书信中的任何一封，也没有迹象表明，保罗读过《使徒行传》中的一行。这些著作成书于同一时期，彼此独立，却受同一精神的激励。诚然，路加略去了保罗前往阿拉伯的旅程、他在安提阿与彼得的冲突，以及他所经历的许多试炼与逼迫；但路加的目的并不是写一部完整的传记。以下按时间次序，举出几个显然并非刻意安排的吻合之例：

保罗的归信

参《使徒行传》第9、22、26章；这三处记述仅在次要细节上有所不同。

《加拉太书》1:15–17；《哥林多前书》15:8；《提摩太前书》1:13–16。

保罗在大马士革受逼迫及逃脱

《使徒行传》9:23–25。犹太人商议要杀他……但他的门徒在夜间用筐子把他从城墙上缒下去。

《哥林多后书》11:32、33。在大马士革，亚哩达 (Aretas) 王手下的提督把守大马士革城，要捉拿我；我就从窗户中，在筐子里，从城墙上被缒下去，脱离了他的手。

保罗访问耶路撒冷

9:26、27。他到了耶路撒冷……巴拿巴接待他，领他去见使徒。

《加拉太书》1:18。过了三年〔从他归信时算起〕，我才上耶路撒冷去拜访矶法，和他同住了十五天。

15:2。他们就定规，叫保罗、巴拿巴和他们中间的几个人，上耶路撒冷去见使徒和长老〔参加使徒会议，解决割礼问题〕。

《加拉太书》2:1。过了十四年，我同巴拿巴又上耶路撒冷去，并带着提多同去。我是奉启示上去的。〔这一内在动机，当然并不排除路加所说的教会委派。〕

保罗独自留在雅典

17:16。保罗在雅典等候他们〔西拉和提摩太〕的时候。

《帖撒罗尼迦前书》3:1。我们就愿意独自留在雅典，打发提摩太去，等等。参3:7。

保罗从事手艺劳动

18:3。他〔亚居拉〕本是与保罗同业，保罗就和他们同住作工；他们本是以制造帐棚为业。参20:34。

《帖撒罗尼迦前书》2:9。弟兄们，你们记念我们的辛苦劳碌，昼夜作工，免得叫你们一人受累。参《哥林多前书》4:11、12。

保罗两次访问哥林多

18:1；20:2。

《哥林多前书》2:1；4:19；16:5。

亚波罗在哥林多的工作

18:27、28。

《哥林多前书》1:12；3:6。

保罗向犹太人就作犹太人

16:3；18:18；21:23–26。

《哥林多前书》9:20。

基利司布和该犹受洗

18:8。

《哥林多前书》1:14–17。

为贫穷弟兄捐款

28:23。

《哥林多前书》16:1。

保罗最后一次前往耶路撒冷

20:6；24:17。

《罗马书》15:25、26。

他渴望访问罗马

19:21。

《罗马书》1:13；15:23。

保罗作带锁链的使者

28:16–20。

《以弗所书》6:19、20。

使徒行传与世俗历史

《使徒行传》使基督教与周围世界发生联系，多次提到各种地方、世俗人物和事件，不过都是附带提及，且仅限于本书宗旨所需的范围。这些记述，除了丢大 (Theudas) 一例以外，都与我们从约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 和异教作家那里所知的当代历史完全一致，足以确立路加的地位，使他当得起见闻广博、诚实可信的历史家之称。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教断言，没有一部古代著作提供如此之多检验其真实性的机会，因为没有其他著作，在各方面与同时代犹太、希腊或罗马的历史、政治和印刷术有如此众多的接触点。《使徒行传》对其中出现的人物，如迦玛列 (Gamaliel)、希律 (Herod)、亚基帕一世 (Agrippa I.)、百尼基 (Bernice)、腓力斯 (Felix)、非斯都、迦流 (Gallio) 的描述，就其所述范围而言，与我们从同时代史料中所知的完全一致。书中提到叙利亚、小亚细亚、希腊和意大利的地区、城市、岛屿，无一不准确，显出作者是一位经验丰富的旅行者。我们将列举其中的要点，有些是关键性的检验。

丢大 (Theudas) 的叛乱，见《使徒行传》5:36；迦玛列在约公元33年发表的演说中提到了此事。这里与约瑟夫斯的记载似乎有所冲突；后者将此事置于克劳狄 (Claudius) 在位、库斯庇乌斯·法杜斯 (Cuspius Fadus) 任巡抚的公元44年，即迦玛列演说之后十年或十二年。²³⁵ 但他提到，大希律死后不久发生的叛乱不下三次，其中一次由犹大 (Judas) 领导（此人可能就是丢大或达太 (Thaddaeus)，这两个名字可以互用，参《马太福音》10:3；《路加福音》6:16）；他又补充说，除此之外，还有许多强盗和凶手僭称为王。²³⁶ 无论如何，我们不应轻率指责路加犯了年代错置的错误。他的见闻与约瑟夫斯同样广博，而可信程度更高。除了《路加福音》2:2所记人口登记一事以外，这是二人记载冲突的唯一例子；至于人口登记，居里扭 (Quirinius) 曾两度任总督这一发现，已使其年代难题有了解决的可能。²³⁷
同一篇演说在《使徒行传》5:37提到，加利利人犹大在报名上册（居里扭主持的人口登记）的时候起事；约瑟夫斯的记载证实了这一点。²³⁸ 在那场大战以前，这位犹大的叛乱是摆脱罗马轭制最有力的一次尝试。
埃提阿伯 (Ethiopia) 女王干大基 (Candace)，8:27。斯特拉波 (Strabo) 提到埃提阿伯的麦罗埃 (Meroè) 有一位名叫干大基的女王；这名称可能像法老一样，是王朝君主的称号。²³⁹
克劳狄年间的饥荒，11:28。他在位期间（公元41–54年）屡遭饥荒之扰；据约瑟夫斯记载，其中一次在库斯庇乌斯·法杜斯任巡抚时，即公元45年，严重波及犹太和叙利亚，使耶路撒冷陷入极大的困苦。²⁴⁰
希律·亚基帕一世 (Herod Agrippa I.) 王（大希律之孙）之死，12:20–23。约瑟夫斯没有提及此前对教会的逼迫，但他关于王之死的记述与路加大体一致：王在统治的第七年（公元44年），于凯撒利亚的剧场接受神明般的尊荣，臣属按异教习俗欢呼他为神；五天后，他便死于一种令人厌恶的疾病。²⁴¹
士求·保罗 (Sergius Paulus) 治下的塞浦路斯 (Cyprus)，其行政地位属于方伯辖区（不同于副裁判官辖区），13:7（σύν τῷ ἀνθυπάτῳ Σεργίῳ Παύλῳ^*）。长期以来，甚至格劳秀斯 (Grotius) 也认为路加在此处不够准确，然而现代研究已为他的记载提供了显著的证实。奥古斯都 (Augustus) 掌握最高权力时（公元前27年），与元老院分掌各行省的治理；那些需要由身为军团统帅的皇帝直接实施军事控制的皇帝行省，其长官称为副裁判官（propraetor，ἀντιστράτηγος^*）或使节（legate，πρεσβύτης^*），元老院行省的长官则称为方伯（proconsul，ἀνθύπατος^*）。这些称谓原先表示任职者此前曾任裁判官（στρατηγὸς or ἡγεμών^*）或执政官（ὕπατος^*）；此时则表示各行省的行政首长。但这种划分屡有变动，唯有见闻广博的人，才能分辨任何特定时期的情况。塞浦路斯在最初的划分中（公元前27年）归属皇帝，²⁴² 但自公元前22年起，以及克劳狄年间保罗访问该岛时，它却是元老院行省；²⁴³ 因此，称士求·保罗为方伯是正确的。已经发现克劳狄在位期间的钱币，证实了这一记载。²⁴⁴ 不仅如此，迪·切斯诺拉 (di Cesnola) 将军在梭里 (Soli)（该岛仅次于撒拉米 (Salamis) 的重要城市）发现了一块残缺的铭文，上面竟有（士求·）保罗本人的名字，铭文写道：“保罗任方伯时。”²⁴⁵ 哈德良 (Hadrian) 在位时，该岛由副裁判官治理；塞韦鲁 (Severus) 在位时，又由方伯治理。
迦流治下亚该亚 (Achaia) 的方伯辖区地位，18:12（Γαλλίωνος ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος τῆς Ἀχαίας^*）。亚该亚包括马其顿以南的整个希腊，起初是元老院行省，提庇留 (Tiberius) 时成为皇帝行省，克劳狄时又成为元老院行省。²⁴⁶ 公元53–54年，保罗在哥林多时，哲学家 L. 安内乌斯·塞涅卡 (L. Annaeus Seneca) 的兄弟 M. 安内乌斯·诺瓦图斯·迦流 (M. Annaeus Novatus Gallio) 任亚该亚方伯，因性情温和而广受敬重，人称“和蔼的迦流（dulcis Gallio）”。
保罗和巴拿巴在吕高尼 (Lycaonia) 被误认为宙斯 (Zeus) 和赫耳墨斯 (Hermes)，14:11。据奥维德 (Ovid) 叙述的神话，²⁴⁷ 朱庇特 (Jupiter) 和墨丘利 (Mercury) 两神（即宙斯和赫耳墨斯）曾以人的形状向吕高尼人显现，受到包喀斯 (Baucis) 和腓利门 (Philemon) 的接待，并为二人留下蒙神眷顾的凭据。他们居住过的地方，虔诚的朝圣者前往瞻仰，并以还愿的供物加以装饰。因此，这些拜偶像的人因神迹而惊讶，便把能言善辩的保罗当作赫耳墨斯，把巴拿巴——他的仪表可能更为威严——当作宙斯，是何等自然的事。
马其顿腓立比 (Philippi) 城的殖民城地位，16:12（“一个罗马殖民城”，κολώνια^*；参16:21，“我们是罗马人”）。奥古斯都曾派遣一批殖民者前往这处著名的战场，布鲁图斯 (Brutus) 和共和国都在此覆亡；他又赋予此地新的重要地位，以及意大利或罗马公民权的特权（jus Italicum）。²⁴⁸
“推雅推喇城一个卖紫色布疋的妇人，名叫吕底亚”，16:14。推雅推喇 (Thyatira)（今阿克希萨尔 (Akhissar)）位于小亚细亚吕库斯 (Lycus) 河谷，以染坊闻名，尤其善染紫色或深红色。²⁴⁹
帖撒罗尼迦 (Thessalonica) 的“城官”（politarchs），17:6、8。²⁵⁰ 这是一个极为罕见的官职名称，很容易与较常见的称谓“poliarchs”混淆。然而，帖撒罗尼迦一座拱门上至今仍可辨读的铭文，证实了路加的准确；碑文列出了保罗到访以前治理该城的七位“城官”的名字。²⁵¹
《使徒行传》第17章关于雅典 (Athens)、亚略巴古 (Areopagus)、各哲学学派、雅典人无所事事的好奇与探问（狄摩西尼 (Demosthenes) 也曾提及）、献给未识之神的祭坛，以及引自阿拉图斯 (Aratus) 或克里安西 (Cleanthes) 的诗句，都得到古典文献的充分印证。²⁵²
约翰·T. 伍德 (John T. Wood) 在英国政府资助下，于1863至1874年间取得了卓越的考古发现，证实第19章关于以弗所 (Ephesus) 的记载在细节上也极为准确。对狄安娜 (Diana)——“伟大的女神阿耳忒弥斯 (Artemis)”——的狂热崇拜、守庙者、经常用于公众集会的剧场（可容纳二万五千人）、城中各不相同的官职、罗马方伯（ἀνθύπατος^*）、书记或“城中书记”（γραμματεύς^*），以及亚细亚首领（Ἀσιαρχαί^*），即竞技和宗教典礼的主持者，都在废墟和铭文中重新显现，如今可在大英博物馆加以研究。莱特福特说：“鉴于这些事实，我们有理由说，古代文献所保存的帝国时期以弗所的图景——也就是伍德先生凭敏锐眼光和坚韧毅力发掘出来的以弗所——没有一幅能在栩栩如生的真实程度上，与《使徒行传》叙述圣保罗在那里停留的记载相比。”²⁵³
《使徒行传》第27章保罗的航行与船难。这一章所提供的古代航海知识，比任何希腊或罗马文学著作都多，并显出一位聪敏的目击者在细节上的准确；他虽非职业海员，却因观察入微而十分熟悉航海术语。他用了不下十六个专门术语来描写船只的行进和操纵，其中有些颇为罕见，却无一使用不当；他对克里特 (Crete)、撒摩尼 (Salmone)、佳澳 (Fair Havens)、高大 (Cauda)、拉西亚 (Lasea) 和非尼基 (Phoenix)（后两处小地方最近已得到确认），以及米利大 (Melita，即马耳他 (Malta)) 各地的描述，也都完全正确，对地中海上那称为友拉奎罗 (Euraquilo，钦定本作 Euroclydon) 的猛烈东北风的动向和影响，描写亦然。苏格兰经验丰富的海员兼学者詹姆斯·史密斯 (James Smith) 已对这一切作了彻底检验，并将考察结果发表于前面提到的那部经典专著中。²⁵⁴ 实物和科学的证据，其分量超过批评家的猜测，无可抗拒地维护了路加记载的历史准确性与可信性。

作为调和之作的《使徒行传》

但有些批评家指责《使徒行传》为了教会中彼得派与保罗派之间的和平，故意篡改历史。据说，这部著作是一部大公教会的调和之作（Catholic Irenicum），可能以路加的一份叙述为基础，但直到第一世纪末才告完成；其目的是使两位主要使徒彼此趋同，即把彼得提升到保罗的层次，把保罗降低到彼得的层次，从而使二者都服务于犹太化的偏狭与外邦人的自由之间的一种妥协，以此调和教会中的犹太人与外邦人两部分。²⁵⁵

这一假说所依据的主要论点，是书中隐去了保罗和彼得在安提阿 (Antioch) 的冲突，以及把保罗描写成与雅各关系友好，尤其是在最后一次会面时。据说，《使徒行传》第15章与《加拉太书》存在不可调和的冲突。但图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 内部已出现反向的变化，如今一些最有才干的批评家也承认，鲍尔大大夸张了保罗主义与彼得主义之间的对立，《使徒行传》的记述也远比他所愿承认的更为可信。《加拉太书》本身就是对《使徒行传》最好的辩护，因为它明确说到，保罗与犹太人中那些柱石使徒达成了真诚的协议。至于彼得与保罗在安提阿的冲突未被记载，那不过是一件短暂的插曲，路加可能并不知情，或因它与他所记述的事态进程无关而略去。另一方面，他提到保罗与巴拿巴之间的“争论”，因为这导致了宣教工作的分开：保罗与西拉往叙利亚和基利家 (Cilicia) 去，巴拿巴与马可则乘船往塞浦路斯去（15:39–41）。保罗对此只字未提，因为它与他向加拉太人所作的论证无关。《使徒行传》所描写的保罗对雅各和犹太人所采取的和解态度，也得到他自己书信的证实；他在信中说，向犹太人他就作犹太人，向外邦人他就作外邦人，为要得着他们双方；他又表示，为了他骨肉之亲的得救，他甘愿作出最大的牺牲（《哥林多前书》9:20；《罗马书》9:3）。

《使徒行传》的真实性

《使徒行传》确实与一切公正的历史一样，是一部调和之作 (Irenicum)，但却是一部真实的调和之作；它的构思完全本于耶路撒冷会议及主要使徒所订协议的精神，正如保罗本人在那封论战性的《加拉太书》中所见证的。取材的原则当然要求省略许多事实和事件，但这种取舍对各方都公平公正。路加忠实记载使徒教会的种种缺陷，极其鲜明地显示出他的公正与真实。他没有隐瞒亚拿尼亚 (Ananias) 和撒非喇 (Sapphira) 的虚伪和卑劣的自私，这些恶行几乎要在基督教尚处摇篮之时便将其毒害（《使徒行传》5:1及后）；他告诉我们，执事职分的设立，起因于说希腊话的犹太人向他们说希伯来话的弟兄发怨言，因为他们的寡妇在每日的供给上被忽略了（61及后）；他将保罗和巴拿巴描写为与别人“一样性情的人”（14:15），并向我们展示了人性软弱的几个实例：马可因宣教生活的艰苦而灰心，回到耶路撒冷的母亲那里（13:13）；保罗和巴拿巴也正是为了这位马可——巴拿巴的表弟——而一度失和（15:39）。他也没有默然略过保罗性情暴烈的发作：保罗在义愤之下，称大祭司为“粉饰的墙”（23:3）。他还述及，甚至在圣灵引导下的使徒之间，也有严重的争论与妥协——这一切既使我们谦卑，给我们警戒，也给我们安慰与鼓励。

试考察并比较从希罗多德 (Herodotus) 到麦考莱 (Macaulay) 的世俗历史家，以及从优西比乌 (Eusebius) 到尼安德 (Neander) 的教会历史家，路加并不惧怕这样的比较。从来没有一部记述三十年历史的著作，能像《使徒行传》这样真实而公正，重要而有趣，语调健全而精神充满盼望，积极进取却又和蔼可亲，使人振奋而深受感发，充满智慧的教训，鼓励人投身于传播真理与和平之福音的工作，同时却又如此朴实而谦逊。它既是最早的，也是最好的教会史手册。

§ 86. 书信

《使徒行传》中司提反和使徒的讲道（保罗向以弗所长老所作的临别讲话除外），都是面向教外人士的宣教演说，旨在使他们归信基督教。书信则是写给已经受洗的归信者，目的在于坚固他们的信心，并借着弟兄般的教导、劝勉、责备和安慰，在基督教训与榜样的历史根基上，使教会在基督徒的一切美德上得以建立。旧约的先知向百姓宣告上帝的圣言；新约的使徒则写信给弟兄，这些弟兄同为基督的肢体，与他们共享同一信仰和盼望。

书信假定读者已经“在基督里”，已经“在基督里”得救、成圣，并且“在基督里”维系他们的一切社会与家庭关系，履行他们的职责。他们与基督“一同生长”²⁵⁶，有分于他的死、埋葬和复活，并且注定要与他一同在荣耀中作王掌权，直到永远。这一新关系由上帝恩典的创造之举所构成，并由洗礼加以印证；正是在此基础上，他们受到警戒，要远离一切罪恶，也受到劝勉，要追求一切美德。凡偏离他们所承认的信仰和所蒙的呼召，都意味着双重的罪责，以及最终灭亡的双重危险。

通信的机会与需要甚多，并且随着基督教在罗马帝国各地传播而不断增加。使徒不可能无所不在，必须向远方的教会派遣使者、寄送书信。他们所写的信，可能远多于我们现有的，尽管我们有充分理由认为，其中最重要、具有永久价值的，都已保存下来。《哥林多前书》5:9暗示保罗先前曾写过一封信给哥林多人：“我先前写信给你们”；²⁵⁷《哥林多前书》16:3、《哥林多后书》10:9和《以弗所书》3:3中，也有其他通信的痕迹。《歌罗西书》4:16所提到“从老底嘉来”的那封信，可能就是作为通函的《以弗所书》。

新约书信在古代文学中无与伦比，其重要性仅次于福音书；福音书的地位更高，正如基督本人高于使徒一样。这些都是写给会众或个人的牧函，以署名、受信人称谓和问安开篇，内容包括教义阐释、实际的劝勉与安慰，最后以个人消息、问候和祝福作结。它们始终以福音历史为前提，并且屡次提及基督的死与复活，以此为教会和基督徒盼望的根基。它们是在不断的宣教劳苦与忧虑中，在试炼与逼迫下写成的，有些甚至写于狱中，却充满喜乐与感恩。它们大多因特殊的急迫需要而写，却适合一切处境。它们是为当时而写的文字，也是为万世而写的文字。它们诞生于转瞬即逝的时刻，却蕴含着意义无穷的真理。除福音书之外，任何著作，无论出于人或出于上帝，都不及它们以如此少的文字容纳如此多的思想。它们讨论不朽心灵所能面对的最崇高主题——上帝、基督与圣灵，罪与救赎，道成肉身、赎罪、重生、悔改、信心与善行，圣洁地生与死，世界的归信，普世的审判，永远的荣耀与福乐。而这一切，竟是向那些由贫穷、缺乏文化的工匠、获释奴隶和奴隶所组成的卑微小群体讲述的！然而，它们对教会所具有的真实而普遍的价值，超过了从奥利金 (Origen) 到施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher) 的一切神学体系——甚至超过了一切信仰告白。一千八百年来，它们一直滋养着基督教世界的信仰，并将继续如此，直到时间的尽头。这是它们出于上帝默示的最佳证据。

书信分为两组：大公书信与保罗书信。前者更具普遍性；后者则带有外邦人使徒那强烈个性的鲜明印记。

§ 87. 大公书信

I. 施托尔 (Storr)：《论大公书信的写作契机与旨意》 (De Catholicarum Epp. Occasione et Consilio)。图宾根 (Tüb.)，1789年。施托伊德林 (Staeudlin)：《论大公书信的来源》 (De Fontibus Epp. Cath)。哥廷根 (Gott.)，1790年。J. D. 舒尔策 (J. D. Schulze)：《彼得、雅各与犹大的写作特征及价值》 (Der schriftstellerische Charakter und Werth des Petrus, Jacobus und Judas. Leipz. 1802. Der schriftsteller.)，莱比锡，1802年；《约翰的写作特征》 (Ch. des Johannes)，1803年。

解释全部大公书信的注释书，作者有：格普费特 (Goeppfert，1780年)、施莱格尔 (Schlegel，1783年)、卡尔普佐夫 (Carpzov，1790年)、奥古斯蒂 (Augusti，1801年)、格拉斯霍夫 (Grashof，1830年)、雅赫曼 (Jachmann，1838年)、萨姆纳 (Sumner，1840年)、德韦特 (De Wette，第3版由布吕克纳 [Brückner] 修订，1865年)、迈耶 (Meyer，其中大公书信由许特尔 [Huther]、迪斯特迪克 [Düsterdieck]、拜施拉格 [Beyerschlag] 撰写)、兰格 (Lange，英译本由蒙伯特 [Mombert] 增补，1872年)、约翰·T. 德马雷斯特 (John T. Demarest，纽约 [N. York]，1879年)；另参《议长圣经注释》 ("Speaker’s Com.")、埃利科特 (Ellicott) 的注释、《剑桥学校圣经》 (Cambridge Bible for Schools，由珀罗恩座堂主任牧师 [Dean Perowne] 编)、《国际修订本注释》 (International Revision Com.，沙弗 [Schaff] 编) 等著作中的有关部分。P. I. 格洛格 (P. I. Gloag)：《大公书信导论》 (Introduction, to the Catholic Epp.)，爱丁堡 (Edinb.)，1887年。

《雅各书》《彼得前书》《彼得后书》《约翰一书》《约翰二书》《约翰三书》和《犹大书》这七封书信，在古抄本中通常接在《使徒行传》之后、保罗书信之前；这或许是因为它们出自资历较长的使徒，并且至少部分代表了犹太类型的基督教。它们更具普遍性，不像保罗书信那样写给个人或单一会众，而是写给散居于一个地区或全世界的更多基督徒。因此，从奥利金和优西比乌的时代起，它们便被称为“大公书信”。在这里，“大公”并非指反异端（当然更不是指希腊正教或罗马天主教），而是指通函或传阅信。不过，这一名称并不十分准确，只适用于其中五封。《约翰二书》和《约翰三书》是写给个人的。另一方面，《希伯来书》具有通函性质，理应列入大公书信，却通常附在保罗书信之后。《以弗所书》同样也是写给不止一个会众的。第一份具有通函性质的基督教文献，是耶路撒冷使徒会议（公元50年）写给叙利亚和基利家 (Cilicia) 的外邦弟兄的牧函（《使徒行传》15:23–29）。²⁵⁸

大公书信与保罗书信的区别，在于其内容更具普遍性，且不涉及个人和地方情况。它们代表了不同类型的教义与基督徒生活，尽管这些类型在本质上是和谐的。在这些保存下来的简短书信中，雅各、彼得和约翰的个性表现得极其鲜明。他们不像博学的拉比保罗那样展开神学讨论，而是以更简明的方式陈述真理；但他们也反对正在兴起的禁欲主义和反律法主义 (Antinomian) 的谬误，正如保罗在《歌罗西书》和教牧书信中所作的那样。每封书信都有独特的性质和目的；从新约中删去任何一封，都会损害整体的优美与完整。

这些书信的写作年代无法确切确定，但可能如下：《雅各书》写于公元50年以前；《彼得前书》（可能也包括《彼得后书》和《犹大书》）写于公元67年以前；约翰书信写于公元80至100年之间。

这些书信中，只有《彼得前书》和《约翰一书》两封属于优西比乌所列的公认书卷 (Homologumena)，即古代教会普遍接受为出于默示、具有正典地位的书卷。至于其他五封，直到第四世纪末，人们对其来源仍有或多或少的疑问；此后，有关正典范围的一切争论都沉寂下来，直到宗教改革时期。然而，它们都带有使徒时期的一般印记；缺乏更有力的传统证据，部分是由于它们篇幅短小，使用范围有限。

雅各

关于雅各的文献、生平与教义，参比较第27、69节。

主的兄弟雅各所写的《雅各书》，无疑写于耶路撒冷，即古代神权政体与犹太基督教的中心。作者在那里劳苦工作，担任基督教世界母会的领袖，并成为新旧两种体制之间最后的纽带，最终在那里殉道。这封信是在公元70年最后的毁灭来临以前，写给散居各地的犹太人和犹太基督徒的。

它与《马太福音》极为相似，以东方智慧那清新、有力、精练、富于箴言和警句的文体，呼应登山宝训。它劝勉读者行出信心的善行，警戒他们提防死的正统信仰、贪婪、骄傲和世俗之心，并就当前及将来的试炼与逼迫安慰他们。它极其注重实践，不涉及精微的神学问题。它所传讲的是一种善行的宗教，能得到上帝和一切善人的赞许。它代表了基督教教义的初始阶段。它没有论及割礼之争、耶路撒冷的妥协，以及使徒时期后来的冲突。它的称义教义并非反对保罗的教义，而是早于后者；它从尚未充分发展、却极其注重实践的角度来阐述这个问题，所反对的是一种不结果子的一神信仰之谬误，而不是保罗所针对的法利赛式律法主义。它可能是新约中最早的书卷，在教义方面较为简略，却富于安慰和圣洁生活的教训，这一切都以对耶稣基督这位“荣耀的主”的信心为根基。它对基督话语的追忆，比任何其他书信都多。²⁵⁹它的主导思想是“使人自由的完全律法”，也就是在基督里启示出来的爱的律法。

路德 (Luther) 对这封书信所作的严苛、不公正且不明智的判断，已受到他自己所属教会的谴责，也暴露出他对称义教义的理解中存在的缺陷；这一缺陷，是他与罗马天主教谬误进行彻底抗争的自然结果。

彼得

关于彼得的文献、生平和神学，见第25、26及70节。

《彼得前书》署明写于巴比伦 (Babylon)，²⁶⁰属于使徒晚年的作品；那时，他天性中热烈的气质已因恩典的工作而深深降卑，变得柔和、圣洁。这封信写给小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 数省的教会；这些教会由犹太基督徒和外邦基督徒共同组成，主要由保罗及其同工建立；信由保罗从前的同伴西拉 (Silvanus) 亲手递送。信中满有宝贵的安慰，并劝勉读者效法基督，行事圣洁，欢喜盼望天上的基业，在已经肆虐或即将临到的逼迫中忍耐。它将丰富属灵经历的果实呈现给我们，完全无愧于彼得其人，也无愧于他的使命，就是在灵魂的大牧长基督之下牧养上帝的羊群。²⁶¹

这封信也证明，彼得与外邦人使徒的教义在本质上是一致的，而读者先前已经受过这教义的教导（《彼得前书》5:12）。这与彼得在耶路撒冷会议上所宣认的原则相符（《使徒行传》15:11）：我们得救，不是靠律法的轭，而是“因主耶稣的恩”。然而，他的教义体系早于保罗的体系，并独立于后者，介于雅各与保罗之间。他所特有的，是基督降到阴间 (Hades) 的教义（《彼得前书》3:19；4:6；参《使徒行传》2:32）；其中包含一个重要真理，即赎罪旨意的普世性。基督为所有人而死，既为他降临以后活着的人，也为他降临以前活着的人，并且向阴间领域中的灵显现了自己。彼得也警戒人提防教阶权势的野心，仿佛预言般地预见了后人会滥用他的名字及他在使徒中的首位。

《彼得后书》是在作者临终前不久，写给与前书相同的众教会的，犹如一份遗嘱。信中再次申明，他与“亲爱的兄弟保罗”意见一致，并恭敬地提及保罗的书信，却也作了一项意味深长的评论，说其中“有些难明白的”（《彼得后书》3:15、16）；这话本身确实，却常被罗马天主教徒滥用。彼得自己在其中一封书信中（《加拉太书》2:11），曾因他在安提阿 (Antioch) 言行不一而受到严厉责备（这也许就包括在那些难明白的事之中）；因此，这番亲切的提及，证明基督的灵如何透过经历，彻底训练他成为谦卑、温柔、舍己的人。这封信劝勉读者殷勤、有德行、节制、忍耐、敬虔、爱弟兄，并以恩慈待弟兄；提及山上变像，作者曾在那里亲眼看见基督的威荣，也提及圣灵所默示的先知之言；警戒人提防反律法主义 (antinomianism) 的谬误；纠正有关主第二次降临的错误看法；劝勉他们以圣洁的生活预备迎接主的日子，盼望有义居在其中的新天新地；最后以这些话结束：“你们却要在我们主救主耶稣基督的恩典和知识上有长进。愿荣耀归给他，从今直到永远。”

优西比乌 (Eusebius) 将《彼得后书》列入七部有争议的书卷 (Antilegomena) 之中；许多杰出的神学家怀疑或否认全书或其中一部分出自彼得，²⁶²但也有胜任的批评学者为其辩护。²⁶³主要的反对理由是：缺乏早期见证，提及一部保罗书信集，驳斥诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 的谬误，具有某些特殊的文体特征，尤其是第二章显然依赖《犹大书》。

另一方面，这封信——至少第一章和第三章——并没有什么是彼得不可能写出的，而其中对变像情景的提及，只容许两种选择：作者若不是彼得，就是一个伪作者。从道德上说，似乎不可能有一个伪作者写出这样一封充满属灵美感与恩膏、又明确谴责一切巧妙捏造之事的书信。它可能在彼得死后曾由编者增补。但全书都洋溢着使徒的精神，实在难以从新约中割舍。它是年迈使徒等候殉道时一篇当之无愧的临别赠言；其中对虚假基督教所带来的内部危险所作的警告，至今仍然有效，因此恰好补充了前书；前书则是在异教徒和犹太逼迫者造成的外部危险中，安慰基督徒。

犹大

“雅各（义者）的兄弟”犹大所写的《犹大书》，²⁶⁴篇幅很短，与《彼得后书》第2章极为相似，但它提及那部引人注目的伪经《以诺书》(Enoch)，以及米迦勒与魔鬼为摩西尸首争辩的传说，这是它与后者不同之处。它似乎写给同一批教会，针对同一批诺斯替派异端。这是一篇严肃的警告，反对公元60至70年间显露出来的反律法主义和放纵情欲的倾向。奥利金 (Origen) 说，它“篇幅虽短，却满有属天智慧的言语”。其文体清新而有力。

《犹大书》同样属于优西比乌所列的有争议的书卷 (Antilegomena)，并带有源于使徒时期以后的迹象；然而，它也可能确是犹大所写，他虽非十二使徒之一，却与使徒圈子关系密切。一个伪作者大概不会舍弃基督的兄弟或使徒的名号，反而以“雅各的兄弟”的名义写作。

本书写作的时间与地点均不详。图宾根 (Tübingen) 学派的批评学者把它定在图拉真 (Trajan) 在位时期；勒南 (Renan) 却相反，把它提前到公元54年，错误地以为它与《雅各书》一样，意在发表反对保罗白白恩典教义的宣言。但保罗谴责反律法主义，与雅各和犹大同样严厉（参《罗马书》第6章，实际上也可参他所有的书信）。最稳妥的说法，是赞同布利克 (Bleek)，认为它写于耶路撒冷毁灭前不久，因为书中并未提及此事（参《犹大书》14、15节）。

约翰书信

参第40–43、83及84节。

《约翰一书》在思想与文体上，处处显出它出自第四福音书的作者。它是该福音书的附言，或者说，是将基督生平的教训切实应用于第一世纪末教会的需要。这是一封通函，是这位德高望重的使徒写给他在小亚细亚所爱儿女的，劝勉他们在基督里过信心与仁爱的圣洁生活，并恳切警戒他们提防已经出现或将要出现的诺斯替派“敌基督”；这些人否认道成肉身的奥秘，把宗教与道德割裂，陷入反律法主义的行径。

《约翰二书》和《约翰三书》，如同保罗写给腓利门的书信一样，都是简短的私人信函；一封写给名叫居里亚 (Cyria) 的基督徒妇女，另一封写给该犹 (Gains)，他可能是小亚细亚某一教会的职员。它们属于七部有争议的书卷 (Antilegomena)，有人将它们归于“长老约翰”之手；据说此人与使徒同时，但他是否存在，尚有争议。然而，第二书与第一书极为相似，几乎逐字重复，²⁶⁵这种重复也很符合哲罗姆 (Jerome) 所传那则熟知的传统：这位爱的使徒到了晚年，总是劝勉会众彼此相爱。古代教会对这两封信意见不一，部分原因可能在于它们的私人性质和篇幅简短，部分则在于作者颇为特别地自称“长者”，即“长老”。然而，这个词可能不应按职分的意义理解，而应取其原义，表示年长与尊荣；因为那时约翰实际上已是在基督里德高望重的父老，在他的“小子们”中间，必然如族长一般受人敬爱。

§ 88. 保罗书信

Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός^*。（罗马的革利免。）

参第29–36及71节。

总体特征

保罗是使徒中工作最卓著的人，不仅作为宣教士如此，作为作者也是如此。他“比众人更加劳苦”。我们大可把他以后所有的神学家都包括在这“众人”之内；因为论到最崇高的主题，我们在哪里还能找到如保罗那里一般丰富而深邃的思想呢？我们留有他的十三封书信；至于另有多少已经失传，我们甚至无从推测。其中最重要的四封，连最苛刻、最多疑的批评学者也承认是真作。这些信如此鲜明地带着保罗的个人印记，又如此充满他所处时代与环境的痕迹，以致任何心智正常的人都不会认错作者。若要怀疑它们，倒不如也怀疑路德 (Luther) 论巴比伦之囚的著作或他的《小教理问答》(Small Catechism) 的真确性。第二世纪上半叶的异端人物马吉安 (Marcion) 接纳了其中十封，只排除了不合他观念的三封教牧书信。

保罗书信是向他亲自建立的各教会所作的牧养训言（罗马教会除外，歌罗西教会可能也除外，这些是由他的门徒建立的），或是写给个人的信（提摩太、提多、腓利门）。其中几封出自监狱，却与其他书信一样洋溢着信心、盼望与喜乐的精神，而最后一封更以胜利的欢呼结束。它们产生于内心深切的激荡之中，却又平静安详。促成这些书信的，是每一个新建教会难免遭遇的试炼、危险和谬误，以及使徒对他们属灵福祉的关切与忧虑。他曾引领他们脱离异教偶像崇拜与犹太偏执的黑暗，进入基督教真理与自由的光明，把他们从败坏的泥淖中提升到救恩之恩典与圣洁生活的纯净高处。他没有家庭的牵累，便把全部感情倾注于自己带领归信的人，爱他们如同母亲爱自己的儿女一般温柔。²⁶⁶他对属灵儿女的这份爱，源于他对基督的爱，正如他对基督的爱，是对基督爱他的回应。他的爱也不限于弟兄：对于那些不信、又逼迫人的犹太同胞，他也甘愿作出最大的牺牲，正如基督亲自为仇敌舍命一样。

他的书信涉及基督教信仰中每一项重要的真理与本分，并从知识和经验的高处加以阐明，却不自称已将其穷尽。它们为建立教义学与伦理学体系提供了最佳材料。保罗回顾创造以前最遥远的起始，又展望死亡与复活以后最遥远的未来。他以受差遣的使徒和蒙默示的教师的权柄写作，然而，在权宜问题上，他将主的命令与个人的判断区别开来。他似乎是在极大的压力下迅速写成，并未修改初稿。即使到了这十九世纪，我们仍与彼得一样，发现他的信中“有些难明白的”；但我们必须记得，保罗自己在上帝真理的无边海洋面前也俯首敬拜，谦卑地承认，他所知道的不过是一部分，所看见的犹如对着镜子观看，模糊不清。这世上的一切知识，都“终于奥秘”。²⁶⁷我们最好的神学体系，也不过是启示之日光的黯淡反映。无限的真理超越我们有限的心智，不能被压缩进逻辑公式的格子里。然而，每一部优秀的注释书，都能增进我们对这些书信的理解，并加深我们对其至高价值的认识。

写作的先后次序

保罗书信写于约十二年之间，即公元52或53年至64或67年，当时他的才力与影响正处于巅峰。没有一封写于耶路撒冷会议之前。从他归信到第二次宣教旅程之间（公元37至52年），我们没有他亲笔所写的文献。把书信内部的线索与《使徒行传》及同时代的事件相互参照，例如迦流 (Gallio) 在亚该亚 (Achaia) 任总督、腓力斯 (Felix) 和非斯都 (Festus) 在犹太任巡抚的年代，便能比福音书或大公书信更确切地考定保罗书信的年代。至于《罗马书》，我们可以确定其写作地点、年份和季节：他转达哥林多人向读者的问安（罗16:23），举荐哥林多港口坚革哩 (Kenchreae) 的女执事非比，她也是这封信的送信人（16:1）；他尚未到过罗马（1:13），却盼望再次访问耶路撒冷之后便能前往，而当时他正要带着马其顿和亚该亚为犹太贫苦弟兄所筹集的捐款启程（15:22–29；参林后8:1–3）；从《使徒行传》我们又得知，他最后一次访问亚该亚时，在哥林多住了三个月，并于逾越节与五旬节之间返回叙利亚（徒20:3、6、16）。这是他第五次、也是最后一次前往耶路撒冷；他在那里被捕，被押送到凯撒利亚的腓力斯那里，两年后非斯都接任。这一切线索都把我们引向公元58年的春季。

写作的先后次序如下：《帖撒罗尼迦前后书》最早，写于公元52或53年；其次是《加拉太书》《哥林多前后书》和《罗马书》，写于56至58年之间；再其次是被囚时期的书信：《歌罗西书》《以弗所书》《腓利门书》《腓立比书》，写于61至63年之间；最后是教牧书信，但其年代并不确定，唯独可以确定《提摩太后书》是他殉道前夕的告别信。

借助《使徒行传》，按年代次序研读这些书信，便能陪伴使徒走过从大马士革到罗马的宣教生涯，并追溯其教义体系的发展：从《帖撒罗尼迦前后书》所记载的真理，发展到《罗马书》中高度成熟的境地；继而见其在《歌罗西书》《以弗所书》《腓立比书》中展开各项专题的分支，最后以教牧书信中的临别劝勉作结。这样的研读极有教益。

按教义编排

比年代次序更重要的，是依据主要目的和中心思想所作的主题编排。由此可分为以下几组：

人论与救恩论：《加拉太书》和《罗马书》。
伦理与教会事务：《哥林多前书》和《哥林多后书》。
基督论：《歌罗西书》和《腓立比书》。
教会论：《以弗所书》（《哥林多前后书》也有一部分属此类）。
末世论：《帖撒罗尼迦前后书》。
教牧：《提摩太前后书》和《提多书》。
社会与个人关系：《腓利门书》。

文体

“文如其人。”这句话用在保罗身上，格外贴切。他的文体被称为“有史以来最具个人特色的文体”。²⁶⁸它恰如其分地表现出他心智的力量与热情，以及内心的温柔情感。他不以古典文辞的优雅自居，自称“言语粗俗”，但“知识却不粗俗”。他把天上的宝贝放在瓦器里。然而，他的长处足以弥补缺点而有余。正是在他的软弱中，基督的能力得以完全显明。我们不至于沉迷于对形式本身的赞赏，反而始终意识到内容的首要重要性，以及文字背后那无法用言语尽述的深邃真理。

保罗的文体刚健、豪放、英勇，富于攻势，宛如征战；但有时又温柔、细腻、和蔼，令人倾心。它错综复杂，不拘常格，粗犷峭拔，却始终雄健有力，表意鲜明，并且屡屡上升到超越诗歌的优美境界，如《罗马书》第八章末尾的凯旋颂歌，以及论爱的赞歌（林前13）。他极度的恳切与奔涌不竭的思想，冲破了普通的语法规则。他的逻辑燃烧着火焰。他善用巧妙的论证、大胆的对照、猛烈的进攻、突兀的过渡、突然的转折、曲折闪射的光芒，以及惊人的问句和感叹。他长于辩证与论辩，喜用逻辑连接词、似非而是的措辞和双关语。他从圣经、从前提、从结论展开推论；他毫不留情地把对手逼入绝境，用 ad absurdum（归谬法）使其论点陷入荒谬，却从不流于人身攻击。他熟悉嘲弄、反讽和讥刺这些锐利的武器，却加以节制，很少使用。他又以感人肺腑的呼吁和炽天使般迸发的雄辩，使论证富于变化。他从不枯燥乏味，也从不浪费字句；他的文字简短凝练，一针见血。这种凝练有时使他的文意晦涩，修昔底德 (Thucydides)、塔西佗 (Tacitus) 和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 颇为相似的文体也是如此。他的字句犹如众多战士，向着胜利与和平挺进；又如山间急流，挟着翻腾的泡沫奔泻过悬崖，随后平静地流经翠绿的草地；也如雷雨过后，清新的甘霖与灿烂的阳光接踵而至。

保罗创造了学术神学的词汇，赋予宗教和道德术语以往从未有过的深刻含义。我们每逢谈论罪、肉体、恩典、怜悯、平安、救赎、赎罪、称义、得荣耀、教会、信心、爱心，就不能不见证这位最伟大的犹太拉比和基督教教师对基督教世界的语言所产生的不可磨灭的影响。

附注

金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 将保罗书信比作比黄金更贵重的金属，又比作永不枯竭的泉源，我们越是饮用，泉水便越发丰沛；这比喻十分恰当。

贝扎 (Beza)：“当我更仔细地考察保罗文体的全部气质与特色时，我必须承认，即使在柏拉图 (Plato) 本人的著作中，我也未曾发现如此崇高的言辞……即使狄摩西尼 (Demosthenes) 的雄辩，其精妙强劲也不能与之相比。”

埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 在其《保罗书信注释》（Commentary on the Pauline Epistles，哥廷根，1857年）开篇，写下了以下醒目而真实的评语：“即使只考察这些书信本身，撇开这位伟大的外邦人使徒所具有的普遍意义，我们仍必须承认：纵观各世纪、各民族的全部历史，没有另一组篇幅相近的著作，像这些书信一样，作为转瞬即逝的时刻所产生的作品，出自如此严峻的时代患难，以及作者本人如此深重的痛苦与磨难，却又蕴含着如此丰盛的健全、宁静和不朽天才的活力，并如此清晰、确切地触及人类志向与行动中至高的真理……这些书信，无论最短小的还是最宏大的，仿佛都是从今生转瞬即逝的片刻中产生，却要把整个永恒系于其中；它们诞生于人间争斗的忧虑与苦楚，却要以更明亮的光辉、更高的确实性，彰显其超乎人的恩美与秀丽。以色列古代先知出于上帝的确信与坚定，刚刚升天的永恒君王与主那超越一切的荣耀及其直接的属灵临在，加上一个成熟而异常激荡的时代所具有的一切艺术与文化，仿佛都联合起来，催生了这些书信这一崭新的创造；它们出于一个时代，却注定要存留于一切时代。”

关于保罗的文体，参见我的《指南》（Companion）等，第62页及下页。在那里所列的见证之外，我再加上罗伊斯 (Reuss) 的评断（《新约圣经史》，Geschichte der h. Schr. N. T., I. 67）：“这些书信的文体，比其方法更真实地表现出作者的个性。古典语言的严整与修辞润饰方面的不足，由语言的丰富和表达的充沛弥补而有余。句法的凝练，要求人不只是阅读，而是研习。断句、省略、插语、论证的跳跃、寓喻、修辞格，都无可模仿地表达出一个警醒而有教养的心智的种种情态，以及一颗丰富而深邃的心灵的全部情感；处处显出一支大胆奔放、却仍追不上思想的笔。对照、层递、感叹、设问，使读者始终专注；感人至深的情感流露，则赢得读者的心。”

§ 89. 帖撒罗尼迦前后书

帖撒罗尼迦 (Thessalonica)²⁶⁹ 是马其顿一座富庶的商业大城，是“第二马其顿区”（Macedonia secunda）的首府，也是罗马总督与财务官的驻地，居住着许多犹太人。保罗在第二次宣教旅程中，于公元52或53年到访此城；短短几周之内，他便在重重逼迫中，成功建立了一间主要由外邦人组成的兴旺教会。基督教从这一中心传遍周边地区。在中世纪，直到被土耳其人攻陷（公元1430年）以前，帖撒罗尼迦一直是拜占庭帝国 (Byzantine empire) 和东方基督教世界的堡垒，并为斯拉夫人 (Slavonians) 和保加利亚人 (Bulgarians) 的归信发挥了重要作用；因此，它获得了“正教之城”的称号。该城历任大主教中有许多博学之士；尽管其主教座堂已改为清真寺，城中至今仍保存着比希腊任何其他城市更多的古代教会遗迹。

保罗作为这间教会的属灵父亲，对这些缺乏经验的儿女满怀慈爱。他第一次逗留哥林多期间，以亲切交谈的笔调，从那里写了两封信给他们，为要安慰他们所受的试炼，并纠正他们对他所传信息的某些误解。这信息关乎基督荣耀的再来，以及在此之前“大罪人”、即敌基督的兴起，和那当时已经发动、却受一种遏制力量约束的“不法的隐意”。盼望主快来的心，已经蜕变为一种狂热的再临主义，扰乱了日常生活的道德秩序。如今他教导他们，主不会像他们所期待的那么快就来，这不是一个可以用数学推算的问题；无论如何，这种期待都不应妨碍勤劳和热心，反而应当激励它们。因此，他劝勉他们过清醒、规矩、勤勉、恒切祷告的生活。

值得注意的是，保罗最早的书信竟然论述神学体系中最后的主题，在开端便预先展望终局。然而，在耶路撒冷被毁以前，盼望基督快来，乃是初生教会在试炼与逼迫中最大的安慰来源；而帖撒罗尼迦教会初建之时便遭受严峻试炼，保罗也被迫离去。同样值得注意的是，那敌基督的不法隐意的开端，首先被启示给希腊一间年轻的教会，而非罗马教会；这隐意当时仍受遏制，后来却要在罗马全力爆发。²⁷⁰

鲍尔 (Baur) 对这些书信、特别是第二封书信的真确性所提出的异议，在最优秀的批评学者看来，都是徒劳的。²⁷¹

理论主题：基督的再临 (parousia)。实践主题：逼迫之中的基督徒盼望。

主要思想：上帝的旨意就是要你们成为圣洁（帖撒罗尼迦前书4:3）。不要像其余没有指望的人一样忧伤（4:13）。主必从天降临，这样，我们就要和主永远同在（4:16, 17）。主的日子来到，好像夜间的贼一样（5:2）。我们总要警醒谨守（5:6）。把信和爱当作护心镜遮胸，把得救的盼望当作头盔戴上（5:8）。要常常喜乐，不住地祷告，凡事谢恩（5:16）。凡事察验，善美的要持守，各样的恶事要禁戒（5:21, 22）。主必降临，在他圣徒的身上得荣耀（帖撒罗尼迦后书1:10）。但那离道反教的事必须先发生，并且那大罪人，就是沉沦之子，必须显露出来（2:3, 4）。不法的隐意已经发动，只是暂时受到遏制（2:7）。要站立得稳，凡所领受的教训，不拘是我们口传的，还是信上写的，都要坚守（2:15）。若有人不肯做工，就不可吃饭（3:10）。行善不可丧志（3:13）。愿赐平安的上帝使你们全然成圣；又愿你们的灵与魂与身子得蒙完整保守，在我主耶稣基督降临（ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ^*）的时候，无可指摘（帖撒罗尼迦前书5:23）。

§ 90. 哥林多书信

哥林多 (Corinth) 是亚该亚 (Achaia) 的都会，坐落于连接两海的地峡上，是东西方贸易的集散地——富庶、奢华、爱好艺术，热衷于敬拜阿佛洛狄忒 (Aphrodite)。保罗在这里建立了希腊最重要的教会，先后劳作十八个月和三个月，其间或许还曾作过一次短暂的探访（哥林多后书12:14；13:1）。这间教会呈现出希腊民族性格在福音影响之下的一切光明面与阴暗面。它在“一切口才、知识”上都很富足，“在恩赐上没有一样不及人的”，却为宗派与党争的精神所困扰，染上了病态地追求属世智慧与华美口才的风气，也染上了怀疑主义与道德上的轻浮——甚至在一定程度上受到严重恶行的玷污，以至主的筵席和爱筵也因放纵无度而遭到亵渎；使徒虽不在场，也不得不将一个行为特别恶劣、使基督徒的信仰名声蒙羞的成员逐出教会。²⁷²犹太主义者和其他扰乱者使教会纷争不已；他们为宗派的目的，滥用矶法 (Cephas)、雅各、亚波罗 (Apollos)，甚至基督的名号（自居为超等的基督徒）。²⁷³在这个活跃、好思辨而又易于激动的群体中，产生了许多道德与良心疑难问题，使徒不得不在第二次（或第三次）、也是最后一次探访之前，从远方予以答复。

因此，这些书信的题材极为丰富，显出作者思想的非凡多才，以及他在处理微妙复杂的问题和应付不择手段的对手时所具有的实践智慧。对于每一种偏差，他都有严厉的责备；对于每一种危险，都有警戒；对于每一种软弱，都有慰勉与同情；对于每一个回转的犯过者，都有赦免与鼓励。这些书信缺少《加拉太书》和《罗马书》所特有的谋篇布局上的统一性。它们主要关乎伦理、教会、牧养和个人事务，而非教义与神学；不过，其中某些极重要的教义，如复活的教义，论述得比别处更为详尽。

I. 《哥林多前书》写于公元57年春，地点在以弗所 (Ephesus)，就在保罗动身前往希腊之前不久。²⁷⁴在此之前，他已经写过另一封如今失传的书信（哥林多前书5:9）。本书答复了一些令人困惑的问题，这些问题涉及扰乱会众和平、玷污其纯洁的种种纷争和恶事。使徒将福音那被视为愚拙的智慧，与人类哲学那自以为智慧的愚拙相对照；斥责宗派主义；阐明基督教会属灵的合一与和谐的多样性，以及教会的职分和恩典的恩赐，其中首要的是爱；警戒人防备肉体的污秽，因那是对上帝之殿的侵犯；就婚姻与独身提出劝告，却不约束人的良心（因为他“没有主的命令”，7:25）；讨论祭偶像之肉的问题，犹太与外邦基督徒、拘谨与自由的弟兄，在这事上意见分歧；吩咐信徒在物质上供养传道人，视之为基督徒的本分，以感激所领受的更大属灵恩惠；防止衣着上的失宜；解释主餐的设立目的，纠正其中的弊端；并以基督的复活，以及他亲自向门徒显现、最后在保罗归信时向他显现为基础，对复活的教义作出最详尽的阐释。座堂主任牧师斯坦利 (Stanley) 论这封书信说，它“比《新约》的任何其他部分，都更清楚地使人洞察使徒时期早期教会的制度、感情与见解。从各种意义上说，它都是基督教会历史最早的一章。”然而，最后这句话并不完全正确。在哥林多这一章以前，已经有了耶路撒冷和安提阿的篇章。

主要思想：基督是分开的吗？保罗为你们钉了十字架吗（哥林多前书1:13）？上帝乐意借着所传之道的愚拙〔不是借着愚拙的传道〕，拯救那些信的人（1:21）。我们却是传钉十字架的基督，在犹太人为绊脚石，在外邦人为愚拙，但在那蒙召的，无论是犹太人、希腊人，基督总为上帝的能力、上帝的智慧（1:24）。我曾定了主意，在你们中间不知道别的，只知道耶稣并他钉十字架（2:2）。属血气的人不领会上帝圣灵的事（2:14）。那已经立好的根基就是耶稣基督，此外没有人能立别的根基（3:11）。岂不知你们是上帝的殿，上帝的灵住在你们里头吗？若有人毁坏上帝的殿，上帝必要毁坏那人（3:16, 17）。人应当以我们为基督的执事，为上帝奥秘事的管家（4:1）。上帝的国不在乎言语，乃在乎权能（4:20）。应当把旧酵除净（5:7）。凡事我都可行，但不都有益处（6:12）。岂不知你们的身子是基督的肢体吗（6:15）？你们要逃避淫行（6:18）。要在你们的身子上荣耀上帝（6:20）。受割礼算不得什么，不受割礼也算不得什么，只要守上帝的诫命就是了（7:19）。各人蒙召的时候是什么身份，仍要守住这身份（7:20）。你们是重价买来的，不要作人的奴仆（7:23）。要谨慎，恐怕你们这自由竟成了那软弱人的绊脚石（8:9）。食物〔或酒〕若叫我弟兄跌倒，我就永远不吃肉〔也不喝酒〕，免得叫我弟兄跌倒（8:13）。传福音的要靠着福音养生（9:14）。若不传福音，我便有祸了（9:16）。向什么样的人，我就作什么样的人；无论如何，总要救些人（9:22）。自己以为站得稳的，须要谨慎，免得跌倒（10:12）。凡事都可行，但不都有益处。无论何人，不要求自己的益处，乃要求别人的益处（10:23）。无论何人，不按理吃主的饼、喝主的杯，就是干犯主的身、主的血了……人吃喝，若不分辨（区别）那身体，就是吃喝自己的罪了（11:27–29）。恩赐原有分别，圣灵却是一位（12:4）。如今常存的有信，有望，有爱，这三样，其中最大的是爱（13:13）。你们要追求爱（14:1）。凡事都当造就人（14:26）。我今日成了何等人，是蒙上帝的恩才成的（15:9）。基督若没有复活，你们的信便是徒然，你们仍在罪里（15:17）。在亚当里众人都死了；照样，在基督里众人也都要复活（15:22）。上帝要在万有之中为万有（15:28）。若有属血气的身体，也就有属灵的身体（15:44）。这必朽坏的总要变成不朽坏的，这必死的总要变成不死的（15:54）。你们务要坚固，不可摇动，常常竭力多作主工（15:58）。每逢七日的第一日，各人要照自己的进项抽出来留着（16:2）。你们务要警醒，在真道上站立得稳，要作大丈夫，要刚强。凡你们所做的，都要凭爱心而做（16:13, 14）。

《哥林多后书》写于同年，即57年的夏季或秋季，地点在马其顿 (Macedonia) 某处，就在作者计划亲自探访亚该亚都会之前不久。²⁷⁵这封书信显然发自深切激动的心境，十分坦率地向我们展现了使徒个人的品格与情感、履行职分中的试炼与喜乐、高贵的自豪与深深的谦卑、圣洁的认真与炽热的爱。它使我们最深入地洞察他的内心，几乎就是一篇自传。在这期间，他通过提多 (Titus) 更充分地得知了教会的状况、第一封书信所产生的效果，以及犹太主义派使者们的阴谋；这些人到处尾随他，企图破坏他的工作。这种不合基督精神的反对，迫使他为自己辩护，以压倒一切的雄辩述说自己的职事与个人经历。他还再次敦促会众履行慈善捐献、赈济穷人的本分。这封书信是一座牧养智慧的宝矿。

主要思想：我们既多受基督的苦楚，就靠基督多得安慰（哥林多后书1:5）。你们既同受苦楚，也必同得安慰（1:7）。我们并不是辖管你们的信心，乃是帮助你们的喜乐（1:24）。这事谁能当得起呢（2:16）？你们就是我们的荐信，写在我们的心里，被众人所知道、所念诵（3:2）。并不是我们凭自己能承担什么，乃是我们的能力出于上帝（3:5）。字句是叫人死，圣灵是叫人活（3:6）。主就是那灵；主的灵在哪里，那里就有自由（3:17）。我们原不是传自己，乃是传基督耶稣为主，并且自己因耶稣的缘故作你们的仆人（4:5）。我们有这宝贝放在瓦器里，要显明这莫大的能力是出于上帝，不是出于我们（4:7）。我们这至暂至轻的苦楚，要为我们成就极重无比、永远的荣耀（4:17）。我们原知道，我们这地上的帐棚若拆毁了，必得上帝所造、不是人手所造、在天上永存的房屋（5:1）。我们行事为人是凭着信心，不是凭着眼见（5:7）。我们众人必要在基督台前显露出来（5:10）。原来基督的爱激励我们；因我们想，一人既替众人死，众人就都死了（5:14）。并且他替众人死，是叫那些活着的人不再为自己活，乃为替他们死而复活的主活（5:15）。若有人在基督里，他就是新造的人；旧事已过，看哪，都变成新的了（5:17）。上帝在基督里，叫世人与自己和好，不将他们的过犯归到他们身上，并且将这和好的道理托付了我们（5:19）。我们替基督求你们与上帝和好（5:20）。上帝使那无罪的，替我们成为罪，好叫我们在他里面成为上帝的义（5:21）。你们和不信的原不相配，不要同负一轭（6:14）。我满得安慰，在我们一切患难中分外喜乐（7:4）。依着上帝的意思忧愁，就生出悔改，以致得救；世俗的忧愁却是叫人死（7:10）。你们知道我们主耶稣基督的恩典：他本来富足，却为你们成了贫穷，叫你们因他的贫穷可以成为富足（8:9）。少种的少收，多种的多收（9:6）。捐得乐意的人是上帝所喜爱的（9:7）。夸口的，当指着主夸口（10:17）。蒙悦纳的，不是自己称许的，乃是主所称许的（10:18）。我的恩典够你用的，因为我的能力是在人的软弱上显得完全（12:9）。我们凡事不能敌挡真理，只能扶助真理（13:8）。愿主耶稣基督的恩惠、上帝的慈爱、圣灵的交通，常与你们众人同在（13:14）。

§ 91. 加拉太书

参较我的《加拉太书注释》 (Com. on Gal.，1882年) 的导论。

《加拉太书》和《罗马书》讨论罪与救赎的教义，以及律法与福音的关系。它们教导人靠白白的恩典得救、因信称义，以基督教的普世性反对犹太教的特殊主义，以福音的自由反对律法主义的束缚。然而，《加拉太书》是一篇急就的勾勒，是深切激动的产物；《罗马书》则是一部精心撰写的论著，是冷静思考的成熟结晶。前者针对外来的侵入者和诱惑者展开论战，后者则旨在和解，写作时心境安宁。前者奔腾而下，如山间急流、飞沫翻涌的瀑布；后者则如壮阔的大河，流经无边的平原；然而，它们仍是同一条河，正如急滩处与开罗 (Cairo) 以下的尼罗河 (Nile)，格劳宾登 (Grisons) 境内与德国、荷兰低地的莱茵河 (Rhine)，或尼亚加拉瀑布 (Niagara Falls) 处与蒙特利尔 (Montreal)、魁北克 (Quebec) 以下的圣劳伦斯河 (St. Lawrence)，在那里，它分流入海，气象雄伟。

一个值得注意的事实是，这两封书信的读者所代表的两个种族——凯尔特人 (Celtic) 和拉丁人 (Latin)——竟已远离其中所教导的教义，以律法的束缚取代福音的自由；如此便重蹈了加拉太人的背道覆辙，这些人热情乐观、慷慨大方、易受感动，却又轻躁善变、反复无常。保罗的福音历经数世纪被忽视、被误解，最终仍被罗马逐出门外（尽管有圣奥古斯丁的教导），正如古时基督教本身被耶路撒冷逐出一样。然而，上帝那统摄万事的智慧，使教皇制的统治成为北方和西方条顿诸族 (Teutonic races) 学习自由的训练学校，正如他曾使犹太人的不信转而促成外邦人的归信。这两封书信比《新约》的任何其他书卷都更能激发十六世纪的宗教改革，直到今日仍是福音派新教的直布罗陀 (Gibraltar) 堡垒。路德 (Luther) 在一种次一级的默示之下，在反对“教会被掳于巴比伦”的争战中，再现了《加拉太书》的精神；基督徒自由的战役再度获胜，其果实也为保罗和路德都从未听闻的民族所享有。

《加拉太书》的收信人是加拉太人 (Galatians)，即高卢人 (Gauls)，原来自莱茵河与摩泽尔河 (Moselle) 边境，后来迁居小亚细亚。本书写于保罗第二次探访他们之后，或在他长期居留以弗所期间（公元54–57年），或在此后不久第二次前往哥林多的途中；也可能写于哥林多，但肯定早于《罗马书》。写作的缘由是犹太主义教师们的阴谋：他们削弱他的使徒权柄，误导他所带领归信的人，使他们背离白白恩典的福音，转向律法束缚的假福音，要求人受割礼，才可称义并成为教会的正式成员。这是一篇“为自己生平的辩护” (Apologia pro vita sua)，是他在个人与教义两方面的自我申辩。他为自己独立的使徒职分（加拉太书1:1–2:14）及其教导（2:15–4:31）辩护，最后劝勉他们持守基督徒的自由而不滥用，并借圣洁的生活显出信心的果子（加拉太书5–6章）。

这封书信以鲜明有力的笔触，揭示了犹太人与外邦人的使徒之间的分歧与和谐——旧日的正统派只看见和谐，因而忽略了分歧；现代的怀疑主义只看见分歧，因而将它夸大。它以宏阔的基本轮廓，预先展现了一场冲突；这冲突在不同教会的历史中不时重演，并在彼得式的罗马天主教与保罗式的新教之间，以最大的规模展开。两位主要使徒在安提阿一时的冲突，正是宗教改革之战的预表。

同时，《加拉太书》也是一篇和解文 (Irenicon)，为一切教义和礼仪争论的最终调解奏出了基调。“在基督耶稣里，受割礼不受割礼全无功效，惟独借着爱运行的信心才有功效”（5:6）。“凡照此理而行的，愿平安、怜悯加给他们，和上帝的以色列民”（6:16）。

中心思想：福音的自由。

关键经句：基督释放了我们，是要使我们得自由；所以要站立得稳，不要再被奴仆的轭挟制（5:1）。人称义不是因行律法，惟独是因信耶稣基督（2:16）。我已经与基督同钉十字架，现在活着的不再是我，乃是基督在我里面活着（2:20）。基督既为我们成了咒诅，就赎出我们脱离律法的咒诅（3:13）。你们蒙召是要得自由，只是不可将你们的自由当作放纵情欲的机会，总要用爱心互相服事（5:13）。你们当顺着圣灵而行，就不放纵肉体的情欲了（5:16）。

§ 92. 罗马书

关于罗马教会，见§ 36（第360页及后）；关于《罗马书》的神学，见§ 71（第525页及后）。

保罗第五次也是最后一次前往耶路撒冷之前数周，寄了一封信给世界首都的基督徒，作为他计划亲自探访的先声；在上帝的护理中，这座城注定要成为基督教世界的耶路撒冷。使徒预见了它未来的重要性，便选定如下主题：福音是上帝的大能，要救一切相信的，先是犹太人，后是外邦人（罗马书1:16, 17）。写给富于哲学思想的希腊人时，他将上帝的智慧与人的智慧相对照；面对统治世界的罗马人，他则将基督教呈现为上帝的大能，这大能将以属灵的兵器，甚至征服那所向披靡的罗马。在罗马政治家看来，这样大胆的思想必定是幻想家或疯子的狂梦；然而，经过三个世纪的逼迫，帝国最终归信，这思想便得到了实现，而且直到如今，仍在日益充分地实现。

使徒在阐释这一主题时表明：(1) 所有人都需要救恩，因为都在罪的权势之下，面临公义上帝的审判；不仅外邦人如此（1:18–32），犹太人也是如此，而且他们的罪更重，因为他们违背了成文的律法，辜负了非凡的特权（2:1–3:20）；(2) 救恩由耶稣基督借着他赎罪的死和得胜的复活成就，以信心为唯一条件，白白赐给一切人，并在称义、成圣、得荣耀这一系列相继的行动中施行于人（3:21–8:17）；(3) 救恩首先赐给犹太人，他们因不信而弃绝了它，于是它传给外邦人；但等到外邦人的数目添满以后，救恩仍要回到犹太人那里（罗马书9–11章）；(4) 我们应当将自己献上，事奉上帝，以此表明对如此大救恩的感恩，而这种事奉才是真正的自由（罗马书12–16章）。

《罗马书》16章的问安语，抄本在15:33及16:20, 24, 27各处显著的差异，以及G抄本 (Codex G) 在1:7, 15省去“在罗马”一语，这些现象最好的解释，是推想这封信的抄本也曾寄往以弗所（亚居拉和百基拉当时在那里，哥林多前书16:19；数年后又在那里，提摩太后书4:19），也许还寄往其他教会，并各附适当的结语；这些结语全都保留在现存的书信形式之中。²⁷⁶

这封信列于保罗书信之首，实属恰当。它比其他书信更为全面而有系统，极其适合那位世界的女主人，她也将成为西方基督教世界的女主人。这是最卓越的人所产生的最卓越的作品。这就是他的内心。其中包含了他理论与实践的神学，他为之生，也为之死。它对罪与恩典的教义作出了最清楚、最完备的阐释，并在第二亚当普世的救赎中，为罪与死普遍掌权的问题提供了最好的解答。若没有这救赎，堕落确实是最黑暗的谜，与上帝公义和良善的观念无法调和。保罗怀着敬畏，揭开了遮蔽永恒预知、预定以及上帝恩慈旨意的奥秘之帷幕；这些旨意贯穿于曲折的历史进程，最终将归于他智慧与怜悯的得胜，以及人类最大的福祉。路德称《罗马书》为“《新约》中首要的书卷，也是最纯正的福音”；柯勒律治 (Coleridge) 称之为“现存最深奥的书”；迈耶 (Meyer) 称之为“使徒全部著作中最伟大、最丰富的一部”；戈代 (Godet) 的说法最好：“基督教信仰的大教堂”。

主题：基督教是使人白白地、普世地得救的大能，其条件是信心。

主要思想：他们都在罪恶之下（罗马书3:9）。律法本是叫人知罪（3:20）。人称义是因着信，不在乎遵行律法（3:28）。我们既因信称义，就借着我们的主耶稣基督得与神相和（“我们得有”，ἔχομεν^*；或“让我们得有”，ἔχωμεν^*）（5:1）。正如罪是从一人入了世界，死又是从罪来的，于是死就临到众人，因为众人都犯了罪（5:12）：[照样，义也是从一人入了世界，生命又是从义来的，于是生命就临到众人，条件是他们相信基督，并因信有分于他的义]。罪在哪里显多，恩典就更显多了：就如罪作王叫人死，照样，恩典也借着义作王，叫人因我们的主耶稣基督得永生（5:20, 21）。你们向罪也当看自己是死的；向神在基督耶稣里，却当看自己是活的（6:11）。如今，那些在基督耶稣里的就不定罪了（8:1）。万事都互相效力，叫爱神的人得益处（8:28）。他预先所知道的人，就预先定下效法他儿子的模样……预先所定下的人又召他们来；所召来的人又称他们为义；所称为义的人又叫他们得荣耀（8:29, 30）。神若帮助我们，谁能敌挡我们呢（8:31）？谁能使我们与基督的爱隔绝呢（8:35）？以色列人有几分是硬心的，等到外邦人的数目添满了；于是以色列全家都要得救（11:25）。神将众人都圈在不顺服之中，特意要怜恤众人（11:32）。万有都是本于他，倚靠他，归于他（11:36）。将身体献上，当作活祭，是圣洁的，是神所喜悦的；你们如此事奉，乃是理所当然的（12:1）。

§ 93. 监狱书信

公元61至63年，年迈的使徒被囚在罗马，等候对他案件的审判结果；他被控“是鼓动普天下众犹太人生乱的，是拿撒勒教党里的一个头目”（使徒行传24:5）。在这期间，他写了四封书信，分别致歌罗西人、以弗所人、腓利门和腓立比人。他这样把监狱变成了讲坛，向远方的会众传送激励和安慰，并为后世作出了比奔走劳碌所能成就的更大的贡献。他以作“基督的囚犯”为荣。他亲身经历了为义受逼迫的福分（马太福音5:10），以及“神所赐、出人意外的平安”（腓立比书4:7）。他常提到自己的捆锁，以及将他与士兵连在一起的锁链或手铐（ἅλυσις^*）；按照罗马的惯例，他的右腕昼夜都与一个士兵锁在一起，士兵轮番换班，依次与使徒同锁，因此他的被囚反而成了福音传遍“全体御营”的途径。²⁷⁷ 他获准住在自己所租的房子里（可能在罗马东北面城墙外、御营营地附近），并可与同伴及远方的会众自由往来。

保罗没有提及他被囚的地点；他的囚禁共延续了四年半（在凯撒利亚两年，在罗马两年，另有六个月耗在风浪中的航程及马耳他岛上）。传统观点认为，这四封书信写于罗马囚禁期间，我们没有充分的理由背离这一看法。几位现代批评家把其中一封或数封的写作地点定在凯撒利亚；不能设想他在那里无所事事，而且那里距离他在小亚细亚的会众较近。²⁷⁸ 但在凯撒利亚时，保罗所展望的是罗马和西班牙；在监狱书信中，他却表示盼望不久便去探访歌罗西 (Colossae) 和腓立比。在罗马，他最有机会与远方的朋友通信，并享有一定程度的自由，而这种自由在凯撒利亚可能是不曾有的。在《腓立比书》中，他转达“凯撒家里”归信者的问安（腓立比书4:22），这自然指向罗马；其他几封书信所反映的情形与环境，也非常相似。

《以弗所书》《歌罗西书》和《腓利门书》写于大致相同的时间，并由同一批信使——推基古 (Tychicus) 和阿尼西母 (Onesimus)——带往小亚细亚，很可能是在罗马囚禁将近结束的时候，因为在《腓利门书》22节中，他因盼望很快获释并访问东方，便请人在歌罗西为他预备住处。

按写作先后，我们把《腓立比书》放在最后，或至少定在罗马囚禁的第二年；因为保罗抵达罗马以后，必定过了一段时间，福音才能传遍“全体御营”（腓立比书1:13），而腓立比人远在罗马七百英里之外（在当时足足需要一个月的旅程），也得经过一段时间，才能得到他的消息，并借以巴弗提 (Epaphroditus) 送来馈赠；此外，在这封书信之前，似乎还曾有过其他往来。²⁷⁹

另一方面，近来有人纯粹依据内证，主张《腓立比书》写在前面，即它在教义上与先前反对犹太主义的书信相近；而《歌罗西书》和《以弗所书》则以诺斯替异端的兴起为前提，因而成为前述书信与教牧书信之间的纽带，在教牧书信中，同一异端已呈现出更成熟的形态。²⁸⁰ 但《以弗所书》在称义的教义上，其思想和措辞也与《罗马书》有显著的相似之处（比较以弗所书2:8）；在教会的教义上，也与《罗马书》12章、《哥林多前书》12章和14章有显著的相似之处。至于那异端，保罗早在数年前向以弗所长老告别时，就已预言它将在小亚细亚兴起。最后，《腓立比书》感恩而喜乐的语调，与《以弗所书》所呈现的基督教会崇高而荣耀的观念，也极为自然地相契合。

§ 94. 《歌罗西书》

弗吕家诸教会

《歌罗西书》最后一章一同提到歌罗西 (Colossae)、老底嘉 (Laodicea) 和希拉波立 (Hierapolis)，说这些城邑都有基督教会；这封书信也可以看作是写给它们全体的，因为使徒吩咐，也要在老底嘉人的教会中宣读这封信（歌罗西书4:13–16）。三城彼此相距不过数英里，坐落在吕底亚 (Lydia) 边境的弗吕家 (Phrygia)，地处吕库斯河 (Lycus) 河谷；该河是迈安德河 (Maeander) 的一条支流。在罗马统治之下，这些城邑隶属于由总督治理的小亚细亚行省。

老底嘉是三城中最重要的一座，享有都会的地位；它在公元61年或65年毁于一次灾难性的地震，却没有接受罗马惯常给予的援助，而是凭自己的财力重建。²⁸¹ 老底嘉教会是《启示录》致书的七教会中最后一个（启示录3:14–22），被描写为富足、骄傲而不冷不热。第四世纪中叶（344年以后），这里曾召开一次会议，就正典通过了一项重要法令，禁止在公众聚会中宣读“新旧约正典书卷”以外的任何书（这些书卷的目录是后来增补的）；这一禁令得到后来东方和西方各会议的确认与采纳。

希拉波立是著名的温泉胜地，四周景色秀美，²⁸² 也是跛足奴隶爱比克泰德 (Epictetus) 的出生地。他与塞涅卡及马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 同列于异教最杰出的道德哲学家之中；他的教训与《新约》崇高的格言如此相近，以致有些作者认为，他曾与保罗或保罗的门徒、歌罗西的以巴弗 (Epaphras) 有过短暂的相识，不过这并无历史根据。²⁸³ 在后使徒时期，希拉波立教会以帕皮亚 (Papias，坡旅甲的朋友) 和亚波里拿里 (Apollinaris) 的主教驻地而见称。

歌罗西²⁸⁴ 也曾一度著名，但在保罗的时代，已是这三个相邻城邑中最小的，如今几乎已从地面消失；而老底嘉和希拉波立那些宏伟的神庙、剧场、浴场、引水道、体育场和坟墓遗迹，仍在见证两城昔日的富庶与繁荣。在保罗曾致书的诸教会中，歌罗西教会是最不重要的一个，后使徒时期也几乎没有人提及；但它却滋生了一种在第二世纪震撼教会的异端，而这封书信则提供了抵御这一异端的最佳良方。

弗吕家有大量犹太人口，因为安条克大帝 (Antiochus the Great) 曾以专横的手段，将两千户犹太家庭从巴比伦尼亚 (Babylonia) 和美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia) 迁徙到这一地区。这种情形，加上弗吕家人性格中耽于感官而又倾向神秘的特质，使这里成了宗教混合主义 (religious syncretism) 及各种狂热的温床。

保罗与歌罗西人

保罗在第二次和第三次宣教旅程中，曾两度经过弗吕家，²⁸⁵ 但很可能没有经过吕库斯河谷。路加没有说他在那里建立过教会，保罗自己似乎也把歌罗西人和老底嘉人列在那些未曾与他亲身见面的人中。²⁸⁶ 他称歌罗西的以巴弗为他“所亲爱、一同作仆人的”和“一同坐监的”，并说他是当地基督徒的教师和忠心的执事。²⁸⁷ 不过，在他长期居留以弗所期间（公元54–57年），以及被囚以后，他对亚细亚的众教会一直施行总体的监督。他死后，这些教会归约翰照管；在第二世纪，它们在诺斯替主义、逾越节、千禧年主义 (Chiliasm) 和孟他努主义 (Montanism) 的争论中，都占有显著地位。

保罗通过他的门徒以巴弗和逃亡的奴隶阿尼西母，听说了歌罗西教会的情形。他托推基古（歌罗西书4:7）带一封信给这个教会，这封信也是给老底嘉人的（4:16）；同时，他托阿尼西母带一封私人的荐信，给阿尼西母的主人、歌罗西教会的成员腓利门。他还吩咐歌罗西人取来并宣读“从老底嘉来的书信”，²⁸⁸ 这极可能就是同样由推基古传递、阐述福音的《以弗所书》。他有特别的理由写信给歌罗西人和腓利门，也有一个普遍的理由写信给以弗所一带的众教会；于是他利用推基古出使的机会，达成了这两个目的。因此，这三封书信在时间和宗旨上紧密相连，彼此解释，也彼此印证。

歌罗西的异端

促使保罗写信给歌罗西人的特别原因，是一种新异端在他们中间兴起；不久以后，这异端便在古代教会中膨胀为一股强大而危险的运动，正如近代的理性主义 (rationalism) 一样。它与保罗在《加拉太书》和《哥林多书信》中所反对的犹太化异端不同，正如爱色尼主义 (Essenism) 与法利赛主义 (Phariseeism) 不同，或律法主义与神秘主义不同一样。歌罗西的异端是一种具有爱色尼派和禁欲主义特征的诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism)；它的仪式和实践成分来自犹太教，思辨成分则来自异教；它保留割礼，守安息日和月朔，并区分各种饮食；但又将东方神秘主义和神智学 (theosophy) 的成分、异教关于邪恶本原的观念、对低等灵体的崇拜，以及为摆脱物质辖制而作的禁欲斗争，混入其中。它教导上帝与物质互相对立，并在二者之间插入一系列天使中保，作为崇拜的对象。因此，它包含了诺斯替主义的基本特征，但尚处于萌芽和初步形态；也可以说，这是一种正向诺斯替主义过渡的基督教爱色尼主义。它的禁欲倾向，与罗马会众中软弱弟兄的倾向相似（罗马书14:5, 6, 21）。约翰时代的克林妥 (Cerinthus) 代表了一个较为发展的阶段，成为歌罗西异端与后使徒时期诺斯替主义之间的纽带。²⁸⁹

驳斥

保罗以平静而尊重的态度，借着关于基督位格的真实教义，驳斥这种虚妄的哲学：基督是上帝与人之间唯一的中保，神性一切的丰盛都有形有体地居住在他里面。他又以因信与爱而洁净人心的教义，来对抗那建立在二元论原则之上的虚假禁欲主义；这种洁净才是一切道德邪恶的有效疗法。

诺斯替派与保罗的“丰盛”观

“普累罗玛” (Pleroma)，即“丰盛”，是《歌罗西书》和《以弗所书》中的一个重要术语。²⁹⁰ 保罗和诺斯替派都使用这个词，这一点曾被用来论证这两封书信出于后使徒时期。当然，他并不是从诺斯替派借用这个词的；因为他在其他书信中也屡次使用，只是含义略有变化。这个词必定已有固定的神学含义，因为他并未加以解释。它的来源无法追溯到斐洛 (Philo)；不过，斐洛使用“逻各斯” (Logos) 来指神圣能力的全体，其含义略与此相似。

保罗说到“地的丰盛”，即充满大地或其中所包含的一切（哥林多前书10:26, 28，引自诗篇24:1）；“律法的丰盛”，即律法的成全或实现，也就是爱（罗马书13:10²⁹¹）；“基督福分的丰盛”，即其充足或丰裕（罗马书15:29）；“时候的丰盛”，即时候的满足（加拉太书4:4；参以弗所书1:10；马可福音1:15；路加福音21:24）；“外邦人的丰盛”，指他们的全数或整个群体，但未必指每一个人（罗马书11:25）；“神性的丰盛”，即一切神圣属性与能力的充足或全备（歌罗西书1:19；2:9）；“基督的丰盛”，就是作为基督身体的教会（以弗所书1:23；参3:19；4:13）。

在诺斯替派的体系中，尤其在瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 的体系中，“普累罗玛”指理智与灵性的世界，包括一切神圣能力或“永世者” (aeons)，与“克诺玛” (kenoma)，即空无、虚空、物质世界相对。这一区分建立在精神与物质永远对立的二元论原则之上，使较为认真的诺斯替派趋向过度的禁欲主义，使轻浮者趋向放纵的反律法主义。他们把从神圣深渊中依次流溢出来的一系列存在纳入普累罗玛之中，作为无限与有限之间的环节；又把基督仅仅看作这些中间永世者中最高的一位，从而贬低了他的尊严。诺斯替派思辨所萦绕的问题，始终是：世界从何而来？邪恶又从何而来？它试图在心灵与物质、普累罗玛与克诺玛的二元对立中寻求答案；但这根本算不得解答。

针对这一谬误，保罗在彻底的一神论基础上教导说，基督是“那不能看见之上帝的像”（εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου^*，歌罗西书1:15；参哥林多后书4:4——斐洛常用这一说法来描述逻各斯，《所罗门智训》7:26也用它描述人格化的智慧）；他是先存而道成肉身的普累罗玛，即神圣能力与属性的全部丰盛；神性一切的丰盛，也就是神圣本性本身的全部丰盛，²⁹²都有形有体地（σωματικῶς^*）居住在他里面，如同灵魂居住在人的身体中一样；他是唯一普世而全足的中保，宇宙间一切能看见与不能看见的事物都是借着他造的，万有也靠他而维系（或联结，συνέστηκεν^*），父又乐意借着他使万有与自己和好。

《歌罗西书》的基督论与约翰的基督论极为接近；因为约翰把基督表述为道成肉身的“逻各斯”，即上帝的启示者，他住在我们中间，“充充满满地（πλήρης^*）有恩典有真理”；从他神圣的“丰盛”（ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ^*）里，我们都领受了恩典，而且恩上加恩（约翰福音1:1, 14, 16）。保罗与约翰完全一致，都教导基督永恒的先存，以及他在创造和维系世界中的作为（歌罗西书1:15–17；约翰福音1:3）。按保罗所说，他是“一切受造之物的首生者，或首先受生者”（πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως^*，歌罗西书1:15，有别于πρωτόκτιστος^*，即首先受造者），也就是说，他先于并高于整个受造世界，亦即是永恒的；按约翰所说，他是父的“独生子”（ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός^*²⁹³，约翰福音1:14, 18；参3:16, 18；约翰一书4:9），先于并高于上帝一切受造的儿女。前一个称谓表明基督与世界的独特关系，后一个称谓表明他与父的独特关系。

关于《歌罗西书》是否出于保罗，将在下一节结合《以弗所书》加以讨论。

主题：基督是一切，又在一切之内。真知与伪知 (gnosis)。真实与虚假的禁欲主义。

主要思想：基督是那不能看见之上帝的像，是一切受造之物的首生者（歌罗西书1:15）。——所积蓄的一切智慧知识，都在基督里面藏着（2:3）。——神性一切的丰盛（τὸ πλήρωμα^*），都有形有体地居住在他里面（2:9）。——你们若真与基督一同复活，就当求在上面的事；那里有基督坐在上帝的右边（3:1）。——基督是我们的生命，他显现的时候，你们也要与他一同显现在荣耀里（3:4）。——基督是一切，又在一切之内（3:11）。——在这一切之外，要存着爱心，爱心就是联络全德的（3:14）。——无论做什么，或说话，或行事，都要奉主耶稣的名（3:17）。

§ 95. 以弗所书

内容

58年春，保罗在米利都 (Miletus) 向以弗所的长老们告别时，鉴于内部将有扰乱兴起的危险，恳切而深情地劝勉他们谨慎自己，牧养“主的教会，就是他用自己的血所买来的”。²⁹⁴

这便奏出了《以弗所书》的基调。本书从教义和实践两方面阐述教会的观念：教会是上帝的家（以弗所书2:20–22），是基督无瑕疵的新妇（5:25–27），是基督奥秘的身体（4:12–16），是“那充满万有者所充满的”（1:23）。神性的普累罗玛有形有体地居于基督里面；照样，基督的普累罗玛，即他恩典与能力的全部丰盛，也居于作为他身体的教会里面。基督的丰盛就是上帝的丰盛；教会的丰盛就是基督的丰盛。上帝映现于基督，基督映现于教会。

这是一种理想的构想，仿佛是对教会未来完全状态的一幅天上异象。保罗自己也把现今争战中的教会描述为逐渐成长，直至达到基督丰盛的完全身量（4:13–16）。我们若要寻找一个毫无玷污、皱纹或瑕疵的现实教会，终必徒劳（5:27）。即使使徒时期的教会也充满缺欠，这从新约的每一封书信中都可看出。教会由个别的基督徒组成，在他们完全之前，教会不可能完全。身体随着各个肢体一同成长、成熟。“将来如何，还未显明”（约翰一书3:2）。

然而，保罗所说的教会并不是一种思辨或虚构，不像柏拉图 (Plato) 的《理想国》 (Republic) 或托马斯·莫尔爵士 (Sir Thomas More) 的《乌托邦》 (Utopia)。它在基督里是一个实在；基督是绝对圣洁的，并且始终以属灵而有能力的方式临在于他的教会，如同灵魂临在于身体的各个肢体。这个观念又把我们应当时刻注目的崇高标准和目标摆在面前；正如基督劝勉每一个人要完全，像我们的天父完全一样（马太福音5:48）。

与这一教会观念密切相连的，是保罗深刻而极富成果的家庭观念。他称基督与教会的关系为极大的奥秘（以弗所书5:32），并把它表述为婚姻关系的原型，借着婚姻，一男一女成为一体。因此，他把家庭建立在新的、圣洁的根基上，使它成为教会，亦即上帝之家的缩影。据此，丈夫要爱妻子，正如基督爱教会这位新妇，为她舍己；妻子要顺服丈夫，正如教会顺服元首基督；父母要爱儿女，正如基督和教会爱每一个基督徒；儿女要爱父母，正如每一个基督徒都当爱基督和教会。这种家庭理想若能充分而普遍地实现，便是人间天堂。但能达到这一标准的家庭，何其少啊！²⁹⁵

《以弗所书》与约翰的著作

保罗在《歌罗西书》中强调基督的位格，在《以弗所书》中则强调圣灵的位格与作为。因为圣灵在教会中继续基督的工作。基督徒受了所应许的圣灵为印记，等候得赎的日子（以弗所书1:13；4:30）。智慧和启示的灵使人认识基督（1:17；3:16）。基督徒应当被圣灵充满（5:18），拿着圣灵的宝剑，就是上帝的道，并随时在圣灵里祷告（6:17, 18）。

《以弗所书》的圣灵论与约翰的圣灵论相似，正如《歌罗西书》的基督论与约翰的基督论相似一样。圣灵从基督的“丰盛”中取来，向信徒显明；他荣耀圣子，引导人进入真理（约翰福音14:17；15:26；16:13–15等）。《罗马书》《加拉太书》《哥林多书信》和《使徒行传》也极其重视圣灵。

约翰没有论及教会及其外在组织（《启示录》除外），但他使基督与个别门徒之间有着亲密而充满生命的联系，正如保罗使基督与整个身体之间有着这样的联系。两人都教导说，教会的合一既是事实，也是基督徒应当努力日益实现的目标；两人也都把合一的中心置于圣灵。

作为通函的意图

《以弗所书》不仅是写给小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 大都会以弗所的教会，也是写给该地区所有主要教会的。因此，一些最古老、最优良的抄本省略了“在以弗所”（以弗所书1:1）这几个字。²⁹⁶ 也因此，信中没有个人及地方情形的消息。《歌罗西书》4:16提到一封给老底嘉教会的书信，吩咐歌罗西人取来宣读；这封信很可能就是我们正典中的《以弗所书》，从这一点也可以推知本书是供各教会传阅的通函。²⁹⁷

本书的特征与价值

《以弗所书》是新约中最重教会的一卷书。但它以保罗书信中最重基督的《歌罗西书》为前提。它对教会的重视，深植于对基督的重视之中；一旦离开这个根基，就毫无意义。没有基督的教会，充其量不过是一具祈祷着的尸体（这样的教会确实存在）。保罗既是高派教会人士中最高的，又是福音派人士中最重福音的，也是宽派人士中最宽广的，因为他的领悟最为全面，也最远离一切宗派或党派的迂腐与偏执。²⁹⁸

《以弗所书》在某些方面是保罗书信中最深奥、最难解的一封（虽不是最重要的一封）。它无疑是最属灵、最虔敬的一封，写成于一种高超出尘的心境之中；在这里，神学升华为敬拜，默想升华为祷辞。这是论天上之事（τὰ ἐπουράνια^*）的书信，是一篇庄严的礼仪文，是献给基督及其无瑕疵新妇的颂歌，是新约中的《雅歌》。这位年老的使徒高高翱翔，超越一切属地的事物，直达天上那不可见而永恒的实在。他从幽暗的囚室，一时登上了变像之山。这位为基督被囚、与一个异教士兵锁在一起的人，化为得胜者，穿戴上帝所赐的全副军装，高唱凯歌。

它的文体也相应地富于节奏，流转奔涌，有时听来犹如庄严管风琴的宏大乐声。²⁹⁹ 其句法十分繁复，组合也不寻常，但这是由于思想充沛而宏伟；此外，我们必须记住，此信是用希腊文写成的，而希腊文容许长句和插入语。在《以弗所书》1:3–14中，一个句子竟包含不少于七个关系从句，犹如浓密的香烟，愈升愈高，直达上帝的宝座。³⁰⁰

路德 (Luther) 将《以弗所书》列在“新约最优秀、最高贵的书卷”之中。维特修斯 (Witsius) 称它为一封神圣的书信，燃烧着基督徒之爱的火焰，闪耀着圣洁之光的辉煌。布劳内 (Braune) 说：“这封书信对于历世历代的崇高意义，在于它的根本思想：耶稣基督的教会，是父藉着子在圣灵里的创造，从永恒中预定，以永恒为归宿；它是伦理的宇宙秩序，是上帝在世界与历史中已经聚集、并仍将继续聚集的家，是他在时间与永恒中养育眷顾的对象。”

这些是欧洲大陆的评价。英国神学家对这封书信也同样极力赞扬。柯勒律治 (Coleridge) 称它为“人类最崇高的作品”；阿尔福德 (Alford) 称它为“一位连想象中都充满天上事物之人最伟大、最属天的作品”；法勒 (Farrar) 则称它为“升天的书信，是对福音奥秘最崇高、最深刻、最进深而最终的表述；这奥秘蒙赐给圣保罗，由他首次向外邦世界完满地宣告出来”。

主题：基督的教会，上帝的家，基督的丰满。

主要思想：上帝从创立世界以前，在基督里拣选了我们，使我们在爱中，在他面前成为圣洁，没有瑕疵（以弗所书1:4）。我们藉这爱子的血得蒙救赎，过犯得以赦免，乃是照他丰富的恩典（1:7）。他定意使天上、地上的一切所有，都在基督里面同归于一（1:10）。上帝使他为教会作万有之首；教会是他的身体，是那充满万有者的丰满（1:23）。上帝有丰富的怜悯，叫我们与基督一同活过来，又叫我们与他一同复活，在基督耶稣里一同坐在天上之处（2:4–6）。你们得救是本乎恩，也因着信；这并不是出于自己，乃是上帝所赐的；也不是出于行为，免得有人自夸（2:8, 9）。基督是我们的和睦，他使两下合而为一，拆毁了中间隔断的墙（2:14）。你们不再作外人和客旅，是与圣徒同国，是上帝家里的人了，被建造在使徒和先知的根基上，有基督耶稣自己为房角石（2:19, 20）。这恩典赐给了我这比众圣徒中最小的还小的人，叫我把基督那测不透的丰富传给外邦人（3:8）。使基督因你们的信，住在你们心里，叫你们的爱心有根有基，能以和众圣徒一同领悟那长阔高深，并知道基督那超越知识的爱，使你们被充满，达到上帝一切的丰满（3:17–19）。用和平彼此联络，竭力保守圣灵所赐合而为一的心（4:3）。身体只有一个，圣灵只有一位，一主，一信，一洗，一位上帝，就是众人的父，超乎众人之上，贯乎众人之中，也住在众人之内（4:6）。他赐下有些人作使徒，有些人作先知，有些人作牧师和教师，为要成全圣徒（4:11, 12）。用爱心说诚实话（4:15）。穿上新人；这新人是照着上帝，在真理的仁义和圣洁中被造的（4:24）。所以，你们该效法上帝，好像蒙慈爱的儿女一样，也要凭爱心行事，正如基督爱你们，为我们舍了自己，当作馨香的供物和祭物献与上帝（5:1, 2）。你们作妻子的，当顺服自己的丈夫，如同顺服主（5:22）。你们作丈夫的，要爱你们的妻子，正如基督爱教会，为教会舍己（5:25）。这是极大的奥秘，但我是指着基督和教会说的（532）。你们作儿女的，要在主里听从父母（6:1）。要穿戴上帝所赐的全副军装，就能抵挡魔鬼的诡计（6:11）。

§ 96. 《歌罗西书》与《以弗所书》的比较及真确性辩护

比较

《歌罗西书》和《以弗所书》大约写于同一时期，并由同一位信使推基古 (Tychicus) 递送。它们彼此的关系，正如《加拉太书》与《罗马书》一样密切。它们论述同一主题，即基督与他的教会；正如《加拉太书》和《罗马书》论述同样的教义，即白白恩典的救恩与因信称义。

但《歌罗西书》像《加拉太书》一样，因某一特定的危机而写，简短、精练，富于论战性；《以弗所书》则像《罗马书》一样，铺陈详尽、平静，旨在促进和睦。《歌罗西书》针对萌芽中的诺斯替派 (Gnostic)（异教化）异端，正如《加拉太书》针对犹太化异端。前者反对爱色尼派 (Essenic) 和禁欲主义，后者反对法利赛派 (Pharisaic) 和律法主义；一封所应对的是基督教被思辨地扩张、被幻想化为烟雾，另一封所应对的，则是基督教被偏执地收缩；然而，这两种倾向像一切极端一样，仍有接触之处，能够形成奇特的混合；事实上，歌罗西和加拉太的谬误教师，都同样遵守割礼和安息日的仪文。《以弗所书》像《罗马书》一样，是对正面真理的独立阐释，而另外两封书信所反对的异端，正是这些真理的歪曲或丑化。

此外，《歌罗西书》与《以弗所书》在共同主题的具体表述和应用上也有所不同：《歌罗西书》侧重基督论，将基督表述为神性真正的丰满 (pleroma)，即神一切属性和能力的总和；《以弗所书》侧重教会论，将理想中的教会展现为基督的身体，是反映基督之丰满的丰满，“是那充满万有者的丰满”。在体系的次序上，基督论自然先于教会论，正如基督先于教会；在写作次序上，《歌罗西书》也极可能先于《以弗所书》，正如轮廓先于完整的图画；但两者相隔不远，出于同一脉络的默想。³⁰¹

这种既相似又对照的关系，唯有假定两封书信出于同一作者、写于同一时期，并且面向受到同样异端思想威胁的同一群教会，才能得到令人满意的解释。若承认保罗是两封书信的作者，一切便都清楚；若不作这一假定，一切便都晦暗不明，难以确定。伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 说：“Non est cuiusvis hominis, Paulinum pectus effingere; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus.”——“不是随便什么人都能摹写保罗的胸怀；保罗发声如雷，闪耀如电，口中所出尽是火焰。”³⁰²

作者问题

近来，这两封关系密切的书信的真确性受到怀疑和否认，但持否定立场的批评家远未取得一致；有些人舍弃《以弗所书》，却保留《歌罗西书》，另一些人则恰恰相反；鲍尔 (Baur) 一向比前人更大胆，也更贯彻自己的原则，因此两封都予以否定。³⁰³

它们必定一同成立，或一同倒下。但它们终将站立得住。诚然，它们代表了使徒时期基督论与教会论认识的进深阶段，但其根基在保罗较早的书信之中，也洋溢着他的精神。它们是因谬误的新形态而写，因而用适合这一情形的新词语、新措辞，对真理作出了新的表述。其中没有任何内容，是保罗若要与自己早期书信保持一致就不能写出的；而在已知的保罗门徒中，也没有谁能够冒他的名伪造出如此富于思想和灵性的书信，足以与他匹敌，甚至比保罗更像保罗。³⁰⁴ 外部见证一致支持保罗为作者，且可远溯至殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、坡旅甲 (Polycarp)、伊格那丢 (Ignatius)，以及异端人物马吉安 (Marcion)（约140年）；后者将这两封书信都收入了他那残缺的正典。³⁰⁵

反对这两封书信、尤其是《以弗所书》出自保罗的人，提出了以下难题：

两封书信惊人的相似，以及《以弗所书》对《歌罗西书》看似重复和依赖的情形，似乎有失保罗这样一位富于独创性的思想家的身份。³⁰⁶ 但这种相似，在实践部分比在教义部分更为显著；它不是作者与模仿者之间的相似，而是同一作者大约在同一时期，就两个密切相关的主题写成的两篇作品之间的相似；并且，与这种相似同时存在的，是思想和语言上同样显著的多样性。
《以弗所书》中没有涉及个人和地方情形的内容。如上所述，这封书信的通函性质，已足以解释这一点。
有一些特殊词语，在保罗其他书信中找不到。³⁰⁷ 但这些词语极其贴切地表达了新的思想，对于保罗这样思想丰富的人，本来就应当预期有这种现象。每封书信都包含一些仅出现一次的词 (hapaxlegomena)。唯一稍令人惊讶的是，一位使徒竟会说“圣使徒和先知”（以弗所书3:5）；但“圣”（ἅγιοι^*）这个词，在新约中用于所有基督徒，表示他们是分别为圣、归于上帝的人（ἁγιασμένοι^*，约翰福音17:17），而不是后来教会所赋予的属灵贵族的意义。这与《以弗所书》3:8并不矛盾；在那里，作者自称“比众圣徒中最小的还小”（参《哥林多前书》15:9：“我原是使徒中最小的”）。
唯一有些分量的论据，是所谓诺斯替异端在保罗以后才兴起的说法；《歌罗西书》无疑反对这一异端（《以弗所书》则不然，至少没有直接反对）。但这一异端为什么不能像犹太化异端一样，在使徒时期就已兴起呢？后者在公元50年以前便已出现，且保罗无论到哪里，它都尾随而至。稗子几乎与麦子同时长起。谬误是真理的影子。与彼得同时代的行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)，以及与约翰同时代的诺斯替派人物克林妥 (Cerinthus)，无疑都是历史人物。保罗谈到一种“叫人自高自大的知识 (gnosis)”（哥林多前书8:1），并且早在58年就警告以弗所的长老，在他们中间将有扰乱教会的谬误教师起来；而图宾根 (Tübingen) 批评家定为68年写成的《启示录》，无疑反对诺斯替主义中反律法的类型，即尼哥拉一党 (Nicolaitans) 的谬误（启示录2:6, 15, 20）；早期教父将这一派追溯到耶路撒冷最初七位执事中的一位。诺斯替主义的一切要素——伊便尼主义 (Ebionism)、柏拉图主义 (Platonism)、斐洛主义 (Philoism)、混合主义 (syncretism)、禁欲主义、反律法主义——在基督以前便已存在，只需基督教真理的一点火星，就足以将这些易燃材料点着。就我们所能追溯至爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、殉道者游斯丁和坡旅甲的见证而言，教父们一致认为诺斯替主义起源于使徒时期，并称行邪术的西门为它的父亲或祖父。

与他们的见证相比，否定派批评家屡次引用的赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 那段孤立的话，³⁰⁸ 实在轻如鸿毛。据优西比乌 (Eusebius) 所述，这位轻信、不准确而心胸狭隘的犹太基督徒作家说，教会在耶稣的弟兄和亲属治理之下，享有深切的和平，乃是“一位纯洁而未受玷污的童女”，直到图拉真 (Trajan) 时代，使徒们去世之后，“那冒称的知识”（ψευδώνυμος^* γνῶσις^*，参提摩太前书6:20）才公然抬头。³⁰⁹ 但他所说的是巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的教会，而不是小亚细亚的教会；他所梦想的那个绝对纯洁、和平的时代，无疑是错误的。图宾根学派自己所持的，恰恰是相反的观点。每一封书信以及《使徒行传》，都见证了教会中深刻的动荡、党派和弊恶，连耶路撒冷也不例外；第一次重大的神学争论，就是使徒们亲自在那里展开的。不过，赫格西普又自行修正，区分了异端的暗中活动与公开而无耻的显露。他暗示，前者始于使徒时期，后者则在此后才出现。³¹⁰ 诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 像近代的理性主义 (Rationalism) 一样，³¹¹ 经过了一百年的发展，才臻于完全成熟。一位使徒以后时期的作者，在对付巴西里得 (Basilides)、瓦伦廷 (Valentinus) 和马吉安 (Marcion) 那些充分发展的体系时，必会采取截然不同的方式。然而，《歌罗西书》和《以弗所书》这两封短短的书信，却直击这一谬误的根本，并以如此富于独创性、刚健有力而又深邃的方式，教导正面的真理，以致即使作为驳斥之作，其价值也超过爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 反对诺斯替主义的五卷著作，以及希坡律陀 (Hippolytus) 十卷的《哲学论说》(Philosophumena)；这一显明的事实，正是它们出自使徒的最佳证据。

§ 97. 《腓立比书》

腓立比的教会

腓立比 (Philippi) 是马其顿 (Macedonia) 的一座城市，由亚历山大大帝 (Alexander the Great) 的父亲腓力 (Philip) 建立，并以他的名字命名。该城位于一片肥沃地区，毗邻金银矿山，坐落在一条小河岸边和亚欧之间的大道上，距海岸十英里。布鲁图 (Brutus) 与马克·安东尼 (Mark Antony) 在此交战（公元前42年），使它获得了不朽的声名；罗马共和国在这场战役中灭亡，帝国由此诞生。此后，它取得了罗马军事殖民地的地位，拥有“Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis”（奥古斯塔·尤利亚腓立比殖民地）这一响亮的称号。³¹² 因此，城内人口混杂，希腊人自然占多数，其次是罗马殖民者和官长，最后是少数犹太人，他们在河边有一个祷告的地方。保罗在第二次宣教旅程中，于52年与西拉、提摩太和路加一同到访此城，这里遂成为希腊这片古典土地上第一个基督徒会众的所在地。最初归信的人，是来自推雅推喇 (Thyatira)、卖紫色布匹的吕底亚 (Lydia)，她是半归附犹太教的人；一个本地使女，她被巫鬼所附，她的主人利用她在迷信的异教徒中牟利；以及一名罗马禁卒。他们恰好代表了三个民族（犹太人、希腊人和罗马人），以及那些尤其从基督教获益的社会阶层。“腓立比的福音史，如同整个教会的历史一样，反映了基督教的伟大准则，也就是使徒教训的中心真理：在这里，‘并不分犹太人、希腊人，自主的、为奴的，或男或女，因为众人在基督耶稣里都成为一了。’”³¹³ 此外，关于全家（吕底亚和禁卒的家）受洗并被聚集到教会中的最早记载，也是在这里；而家庭正是培育教会的主要苗圃。这个会众已组织完备，由监督（长老）和执事带领（腓立比书1:1）。

使徒在这里遭受了严酷的逼迫，也奇妙地蒙了拯救。在这里，他有了最忠诚、最热心的归信者，他们是他的“喜乐和冠冕”。他对他们怀有最深厚的个人情谊；他也只肯接受他们供给生活所需的捐助。57年秋，阔别五年之后，他第二次访问腓立比；其间，他一直借着往来的使者，与会众保持不断的联系。次年春天，他最后一次前往耶路撒冷时，又在腓立比停留，与亲爱的弟兄们同守逾越节。他们虽在贫困之中，却慷慨捐助，救济犹太地的众教会。听说他抵达罗马，他们又借以巴弗提 (Epaphroditus) 及时送去援助；以巴弗提还亲自服侍这位为主被囚的人，为此牺牲了健康，甚至几乎丧命。保罗正是借着这位忠心的同工，将感谢信送给腓立比人，并盼望获释以后，再亲自去看望他们。

这封书信

这封书信以亲切自然的笔调，反映了他与这群蒙爱羊群之间建立在基督之爱上的关系。它不是系统性的论述，不是论战，也不是护教之作，而是个人性、自传性的文字；在这一点上，它与《帖撒罗尼迦前书》相似，也在某种程度上近于《哥林多后书》。这是温柔的爱与感激之情的自然流露，面对生死，仍洋溢着喜乐和欢欣。它好比他在腓立比地牢中半夜唱出的赞美诗。“你们要靠主常常喜乐；我再说，你们要喜乐”（腓立比书4:4）。³¹⁴ 这就是全信的基调。³¹⁵ 它证明，健全的基督徒信仰非但不使人心消沉悲伤，反而使人即使身在监牢，也能真正快乐而知足。对于我们认识使徒的品格，这封信提供了重要的材料。在感谢腓立比人的馈赠时，他优雅而细腻地将刚健的独立精神与感恩之情融为一体。他无须像在《加拉太书》和《哥林多书》中那样，责备教义上的谬误或行为上的恶习。

唯一不和谐的音调，是他警告读者提防那些“妄自行割的犬类”（κατατομή^*，3:2）；他以此讥称那些鼓吹割礼（περιτομή^*）的人。他们到处在他的麦田里撒稗子，就在那时，还企图以律法的义取代信心的义，阻挠他在罗马的工作发生功效。但他也同样恳切地告诫读者，防备另一极端，即反律法主义的放纵（3:2–21）。针对腓立比人中间个人之间和群体之间所表现出的争竞纷争精神，保罗提醒他们效法基督舍己的榜样：他本为至高，却虚己，脱去自己神圣的威荣，成为至卑，存心顺服，以至于死，且死在十字架上；又因他的顺服得了赏赐，被高举，所得之名超乎万名之上（2:1–11）。

这是本信中最重要的教义段落，并且（与哥林多后书8:9一起）蕴含了关于虚己 (kenosis) 的性质及程度之思辨的丰厚萌芽；这一问题在基督论史上占有极其显著的地位。³¹⁶ 使徒有些最深邃的言论，竟由看似偶然的契机引出，这便是一个突出的例子。“它有些段落带着优雅而不拘雕琢的笔致（腓立比书1:29），好比柏拉图 (Plato) 的对话和西塞罗 (Cicero) 的书信；同时又有极其雄辩的段落，并且从外在的关系与特殊的处境，推进到深远的思想和宏大的观念。”³¹⁷

少数过度批评者对本信真实性提出的异议，不值得认真反驳。³¹⁸184

后来的历史

腓立比教会后来的历史，如同东方其他使徒所建立的教会一样，颇令人失望。它再次出现于伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 的书信中；他在前往罗马殉道的途中经过此地，受到弟兄们的热情款待和护送。它也出现于坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的《致腓立比人书》中；坡旅甲表示喜乐，因为“他们信仰的坚实根基，自最初的日子便享有盛名，如今仍然存留，并为我们的主耶稣基督结出果实”，又提到“蒙福而荣耀的保罗”在他们中间的劳苦。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 援引腓立比教会为证，指出它仍持守使徒的教义，并公开诵读他的书信。其主教的名字偶尔见于大公会议的记录，但仅此而已。中世纪时，这座城市沦为一个凄凉的村落，主教区也只剩虚名。如今，原址甚至连村落也没有，只有一座商旅客栈，离遗址一英里或更远；遗址包括一座剧场、残破的大理石柱、两座高大的城门，以及一段城墙。³¹⁹ “这教会在一切使徒所建立的群体中，在信心和爱心上曾居首位；论到它，真可以按字面说，没有一块石头留在另一块石头上。它的整个历程，是上帝莫测旨意的一座醒目丰碑。腓立比教会诞生于世时，前景无比光明；然而，它存活而未留下历史，消逝而未留下纪念。”³²⁰

然而，在保罗的书信里，那一小群高尚的基督徒仍然活着，并使遥远各国的教会蒙福。

主题：神学方面：基督为我们的救恩而自我降卑（κένωσις^*）（腓立比书2:5–11）。实践方面：基督徒的喜乐。

主要思想：那在你们心里动了善工的，必成全这工（1:6）。只要基督被传开，我就欢喜（1:13）。因我活着就是基督，死了就有益处（1:21）。你们当以基督耶稣的心为心：他倒空自己，等等（2:5及下文）。你们立志行事，都是上帝在你们心里运行（2:13）。你们要靠主常常喜乐；我再说，你们要喜乐（3:1；4:1）。我将万事当作有损的，因我以认识基督为至宝（3:8）。我向着标竿直跑，要得上帝在基督耶稣里从上面召我来得的奖赏（3:14）。凡是真实的、可敬的、公义的、清洁的、可爱的、有美名的，若有什么德行，若有什么称赞，这些事你们都要思念（4:8）。上帝所赐的平安，出人意外（4:7）。

§ 98. 《腓利门书》

保罗在漫长的一生中，必定写过许多私人的介绍信和推荐信，但流传给我们的只有一封，篇幅甚短，分量却极重。这封信是写给腓利门 (Philemon) 的；他是歌罗西 (Colossae) 一位热心的基督徒，经保罗引导归信，看来是一位平信徒，曾借出自己的住宅，供弟兄们举行宗教聚会。³²¹ 这个名字使人想起神话中一则动人的传说：同在弗吕家 (Phrygia) 行省，忠贞的老夫妇腓利门和鲍喀斯 (Baucis)，不知不觉接待了神明，因其质朴的好客之心和夫妻之爱而得了赏赐。这封信与《歌罗西书》同时写成，同时送出，可以看作该信的一篇私人附言。

这是一封推荐阿尼西母 (Onesimus，即“有益的”) 的信。³²² 他是腓利门的奴仆，因犯了某种过错（可能是偷窃，这是奴仆极常犯的罪），³²³ 从主人那里逃走，在罗马遇见保罗；他可能曾在歌罗西每周的聚会中，或从同乡以巴弗 (Epaphras) 那里听说过保罗。他受保罗引导，归信了基督教，如今愿以悔罪者的身份，与递送《歌罗西书》的推基古 (Tychicus) 一同回去（歌罗西书4:9）。

保罗与奴隶制度

这封书信纯属私人性质，却意义重大。保罗省去了自己的职衔，代之以感人的称谓：“为基督耶稣被囚的”，由此直叩友人的心扉。这封信把我们带进一个基督徒家庭，其中有父亲（腓利门）、母亲（亚腓亚，Apphia）、儿子（亚基布，Archippus，同时也是一位“一同当兵的”，即基督教的传道人），以及一个奴仆（阿尼西母）。它表明，在异教全然无能为力的一个关键问题上，基督教如何影响社会。它触及奴隶制度；这一制度如梦魇般压在整个异教世界之上，与家庭生活和公共生活的整个结构交织在一起。

基督教对这一巨大的社会罪恶所起的作用，是从内部施行和平而渐进的医治：它教导人类同出一源，人人平等，同蒙救赎，并在基督里互为弟兄；它使人脱离奴役，进入基督里属灵的自由、平等和弟兄之谊；在基督里，并不分犹太人、希腊人，自主的、为奴的，或男或女，众人在道德上都成为一体（加拉太书3:28）。这一原则及其相应的实践，起初改善了奴隶的处境，最终促成奴隶制度的废除。这一过程十分缓慢，并受到人对财富与权力的贪爱，以及一切罪恶情欲的反作用所阻挠；但它的进展是确定的，如今在整个基督教世界中已近完成；异教和伊斯兰教却把奴隶制度视为社会的正常状态，因此甚至不曾尝试消除它。这是使徒们处理这一问题时唯一明智的途径。若由他们发表解放奴隶的宣言，那不过是一道徒具声势的雷霆（brutum fulmen）；即使奏效，也会引发一场血腥的社会革命，连基督教本身也会葬身其中。

因此，保罗把阿尼西母送回他合法的主人那里，但他已有了新的身份：不再是一个可鄙的窃贼和逃奴，而是一个重生的人、一位“亲爱的兄弟”。保罗恳切地请求腓利门，接待他如同接待使徒本人，甚至如同接待使徒的心肠一样（腓利门书16、17节）。这样的劝告拔去了奴隶制度的毒刺；形式虽存，实质已逝。这是何等鲜明的对照！在异教哲学家（甚至亚里士多德，Aristotle）眼中，阿尼西母与所有其他奴隶一样，不过是一件活的财产；在保罗眼中，他却是蒙救赎的上帝儿女，是永生的后嗣，这远胜于自由。³²⁴

《新约》没有记载这封信所产生的结果。我们不能怀疑，腓利门赦免了阿尼西母，并以基督徒的仁爱待他。他极有可能超越了请求的字面，遵从了其中暗示释放奴隶的精神。传统传说，阿尼西母获得自由，后来成为马其顿 (Macedonia) 庇哩亚 (Beraea) 的主教；有时，他被误认作第二世纪以弗所 (Ephesus) 的一位同名主教，或被说成是西班牙的传教士，在罗马或部丢利 (Puteoli) 殉道。³²⁵

保罗与腓利门

同时，这封书信也为我们认识保罗提供了无价的资料。它向我们显明，保罗是一位完美的基督徒君子。它是礼貌、体贴与温柔情感的典范。这位年老的使徒虽身陷囹圄，心中却充满了对一个可怜逃奴的爱与同情，使他在基督耶稣里成为自由人，并推荐他，如同推荐自己一样。

保罗与普林尼

格劳秀斯 (Grotius) 及其他注释家³²⁶引用了执政官普林尼 (Pliny) 为一个逃奴写给友人萨比尼亚努斯 (Sabinianus) 的著名书信。普林尼出生于保罗以囚犯身份抵达罗马的那一年；这封信使他大得称许，也表明即使那种不人道的制度，也不能泯灭人性中仁慈宽厚的情感。普林尼是一位修养深厚、天性高尚的罗马君子，尽管他因无知而鄙视基督教，并在亚细亚任总督时，逼迫那些无辜的信徒。这两封信有一些惊人的相似之处：两者都涉及一个有罪却已悔改、愿意重新尽责的逃奴；两者都出于无私的仁爱，以礼貌、体贴而恳切的言辞，请求饶恕逃奴，恢复他原有的地位。但两者的区别，正如基督徒的爱与天然的人道之心的区别，也如基督徒君子与异教君子的区别。一个只能诉诸友人温厚的性情与自尊，另一个则诉诸基督的爱，以及责任感和感恩之心；一个关心受他庇护者今世的安适，另一个却更加关心他的永恒福祉；一个至多只能把他送回原有的奴隶地位，另一个却把他提升到基督徒弟兄的崇高尊严，使他与主人同坐在一位共同的主和救主的圣餐桌前。“若论文辞的优美，这位罗马人或可夺魁；但若论格调的高尚与心肠的温暖，他就远不及这位被囚的使徒了。”

在奴隶制度统治罗马帝国的古代教会中，人们对这封书信的理解十分不足。第四世纪曾普遍存在一种强烈的偏见，仿佛它完全不配出于使徒之手。哲罗姆 (Jerome)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 及其他注释家，自己也不清楚它最终将具有怎样的社会意义，因而向读者辩解：保罗何以不去教导形而上学的教义、执行教会纪律，反倒如此关切一个可怜的逃奴。³²⁷ 但自宗教改革以来，它已获得充分公正的评价。伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 说：“西塞罗 (Cicero) 的笔下，也从未有过比这更优雅的文字。”路德 (Luther) 和加尔文 (Calvin) 都高度赞扬这封信，尤其是路德，他充分领会了其中高尚而肖似基督的情怀。本格尔 (Bengel)：“mire ἀστεῖος^*。”埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)：“温柔友谊的敏感与热忱，与一种具有统率力的精神所怀的崇高情感，其交融之美，没有任何地方比得上这封信；它如此简短，却又如此充实，意味深长。”迈耶 (Meyer)：“这是一个伟大人格留下的珍贵遗物；即使仅把它看作阿提卡式优雅与温文的范本，它也足以跻身古代书信杰作之列。”鲍尔 (Baur) 以一些无足轻重的论据，断定它出于使徒之后，因而予以否定；但他也承认，它“以其动人的形式给人愉悦的印象”，并流露出“最高尚的基督徒精神”。³²⁸ 霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 称它为“机敏、雅致与亲切的典范”。罗伊斯 (Reuss) 说，它是“机敏与人道的典范，表达了对基督徒责任的细腻体认，以及温厚、亲切的幽默”。勒南 (Renan) 对文学与审美上的优劣有敏锐的眼光，他称赞它是“书信艺术中一篇真正的小小chef-d’œuvre,^*”。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 虽然更看重它在奴隶制度问题上的道德意义，却也论及它在文学上的卓越：“《腓利门书》所表现的朴素尊严、文雅礼貌、宽广同情和热烈的个人情谊，是无与伦比的。它的卓越尤其值得注意，因为它在文体上格外松散。它丝毫不借助修辞的华美；它的感染力完全来自作者的精神。”

§ 99. 教牧书信

参较§ 33，第327–329页。

内容

三封教牧书信，即写给提摩太 (Timothy) 的两封和写给提多 (Titus) 的一封，自成一组，代表使徒生平与工作的最后阶段，其中载有他向亲爱的门徒和同工所作的临别劝勉。它们向我们展示了使徒教会从起初的简朴，过渡到更明确的教义体系与治理形式。这正符合我们依据其可能写作年代所作的预期：它们写于保罗第一次在罗马被囚之后、《启示录》写成之前。

这些书信不是写给会众，而是写给个人，因此更带有私人与亲密交谈的性质。这一事实有助于我们理解其中许多独特之处。提摩太的父亲是异教徒，母亲是犹太人；提多则是归信的希腊人。他们都属于保罗最亲爱的门徒之列。³²⁹ 同时，他们也是保罗在特定场合派出的代表与特使，并以这种职务身份出现在这些书信中；这些书信因此得名“教牧书信”。

这些书信包含保罗的教牧神学及其教会治理理论。它们就教会的建立、培育和治理，以及如何妥善对待个别信徒——无论老幼、寡妇、童女、退后者或异端者——给予指导。每一位牧者都知道，其中富有实践的智慧，充满勉励。

《提摩太后书》的内容比另外两封更加私人化，而且还具有为保罗自传作结的重要意义。这是他留给后世所有基督的传道人和精兵的最后遗嘱。

保罗的作者身份

除第二世纪少数诺斯替派 (Gnostics) 之外，直到十九世纪，从未有人认真怀疑这些书信出自保罗。它们一直被列入公认书卷 (Homologumena)，有别于《新约》的七卷争议书卷 (Antilegomena)。就外在证据而言，它们的基础与任何其他书信同样坚实。优西比乌 (Eusebius)、德尔图良 (Tertullian)、亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 和爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 都将它们作为正典引用。在好几位使徒教父的著作中，可以找到对这些书信的呼应，有些甚至在措辞上相合。古代抄本、译本，以及《穆拉多利正典目录》(Muratorian canon)，都收录了它们。诚然，马吉安 (Marcion，约140年) 没有把它们列入他那包含十封保罗书信的正典；但他也排除了诸福音书（残缺的《路加福音》除外）、大公书信和《启示录》。³³⁰

然而，某些内部的难题促使不少现代批评家把这些书信全部，或至少把《提摩太前书》，归于一位保罗之后或冒用保罗之名的作者。他或是修改、调整保罗的原作，使之适应后来教会的状况，或是为维护大公教会的正统信仰而伪造了全书。不论是哪种情况，这位作者都被认为怀有最良善的意图，不应按现代关于著述诚信与著作权的标准来评判。在教义上，教牧书信被视为真正的保罗主义与约翰的逻各斯 (Logos) 哲学之间的纽带；在教会制度上，则被视为原始长老制与大公教会主教制之间的纽带；在这两方面，它们都是第二世纪正统大公教会形成过程中不可或缺的因素。

反对保罗为作者的理由值得认真考虑，具体如下：（1）无法把这些书信安置在有记载的保罗生平之中；（2）其中所反对的诺斯替派异端；（3）其中所隐含的教会组织；（4）文体与气质上的独特之处。若这些书信并非真作，《提摩太后书》就必定是其中最早的一封，因为上述反对理由对它最不适用；而《提摩太前书》和《提多书》则被认为代表了较晚的发展。³³¹

写作时间

教牧书信的年代尚不确定，有人据此反对其真实性。这与保罗第二次在罗马被囚的假说密切相关，我们已在别处讨论过这一问题。

《提摩太后书》无论是否真作，都出自罗马的监狱，而且看来是保罗最后的一封书信；因为他当时随时都在等候信仰争战的终结，以及他的主和夫子所赐的公义冠冕（提摩太后书4:7、8）。那些否认第二次被囚，却仍承认《提摩太后书》出自保罗的人，把它置于第一次被囚的末期。

至于《提摩太前书》和《提多书》，从内容上显然可知，它们写于保罗自由之时，而且是在他作过几次《使徒行传》未曾记载的旅行之后。困难就在这里。有两条可行的途径：

这两封书信写于56年和57年。保罗在公元54–57年住在以弗所 (Ephesus) 的三年间（见使徒行传19:8–10；20:31），很容易就可能第二次前往马其顿 (Macedonia)，把以弗所交给提摩太照管（提摩太前书1:3）；也可能渡海到克里特岛 (Crete)，把提多留在那里照管众教会（提多书1:5）。考虑到《使徒行传》记载的不完整，以及《哥林多后书》2:1；12:13、14、21；13:1可能暗指一次《使徒行传》未曾记载的第二次哥林多之行，这两次旅行都并非不可能。³³² 但如此早的写作年代，仍未能解释其他困难。
关于第二次在罗马被囚的传统，至少可以论证为极有可能；它为保罗在63年春获释以后，至64年7月尼禄逼迫发生以前（据塔西佗），或至三四年以后（据优西比乌和哲罗姆），留出了从事新旅行与劳作的时间，也为这些书信所暗示的诺斯替异端及教会组织的发展留出了余地，从而消除了这一困难。因此，承认这些书信真实性的作者，大多把《提摩太前书》和《提多书》置于两次罗马被囚之间。³³³

保罗确实打算从罗马前往西班牙（罗马书15:24），也打算前往东方（腓利门书22；腓立比书1:25、26；2:24）；即使我们坚持以塔西佗的日期来限定尼禄的逼迫，他在逼迫发生以前也有充裕的时间实现自己的意图。³³⁴

那些紧抓年代困难不放的人，不应忘记：一个伪作者原本很容易就能使这些书信吻合《使徒行传》的叙事，却不大可能凭空编造一连串旅行、处境与琐事，例如嘱咐人带来保罗因行程匆忙而留在特罗亚 (Troas) 的外衣、书卷和皮卷（提摩太后书4:13）。

诺斯替异端

教牧书信与《歌罗西书》一样，反对诺斯替异端 (Gnostic heresy)（γνῶσις^* ψευδώνυμος^*，提摩太前书6:20）。这种异端在保罗第一次于罗马被囚期间兴起于小亚细亚，并在约翰的同时代人克林妥 (Cerinthus) 身上显出更为充分的发展。早期教父爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良承认这一点，正是用这些书信作为保罗的见证，反对他们时代的诺斯替主义。

问题随之而来：这种多面性的谬误有许多类型，这里反对的是哪一种？显然是犹太化的类型，与歌罗西的异端相似，却发展得更深，危害也更大，因此受到更严厉的谴责。这些异端分子属于“奉割礼的人”（提多书1:10）；他们被称为“律法师”（νομοδιδάσκαλοι^*，提摩太前书1:7，与反律法主义者恰好相反），又被说成听从“犹太人的荒渺言语”（Ἰουδαϊκοὶ μῦθοι^*，提多书1:14），从事“因律法而起的争竞”（μάχαι νομικαί^*，提多书3:9），并且喜好愚拙无学问的辩论（提摩太后书2:23）。此外，他们像爱色尼派 (Essenes) 一样，是过度的禁欲主义者，禁止嫁娶，戒除肉食（提摩太前书4:3、8；提多书1:14、15）。他们否认复活，败坏了一些人的信心（提摩太后书2:18）。

鲍尔 (Baur) 把这些异端分子说成马吉安 (Marcion) 学派（约140年）中反犹太教、反律法的诺斯替派，继而据此把这些书信的年代定在第二世纪中叶。他在“家谱”（提摩太前书1:4；提多书3:9）中看出诺斯替派诸永世体 (aeons) 的流出，又在“对立之论”（提摩太前书6:20），即异端教师反对福音的主张中，看出对马吉安“对立论”（antilogies）的暗指；马吉安借此阐述《旧约》与《新约》之间所谓的矛盾。³³⁵ 但这是一种根本性的误解；较近代反对这些书信真实性的人，也不得不承认这些谬误传播者具有犹太化的性质；他们把这些人与克林妥、俄斐派 (Ophites) 和撒土尼努 (Saturninus) 等同起来，后者比马吉安早了几十年。³³⁶

至于诺斯替异端的起源，图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 想把它定在哈德良 (Hadrian) 时代；但我们已经看到，按照保罗后期书信、彼得、约翰和犹大的书信、《启示录》，以及教父传统的一致见证，它与其对应的伊便尼派异端 (Ebionite heresy) 一样，起源于使徒时期。³³⁷

教会组织

教牧书信似乎以一种比保罗其他书信中更为充分发展的教会组织为前提，属于从使徒时期的简朴制度，或说基督治下的民主制——如果容许我们使用这个词——向第二世纪主教圣统制过渡的时代。耶路撒冷毁灭以后，教会对于基督即将再来的信念逐渐减弱，也就逐渐开始在这世界安顿下来，借着固定的信经和严密的组织，预备一个长久的居所；这使教会获得合一与力量，以抵御异教的逼迫和异端的腐蚀。这种既简朴又灵活的组织，就是主教制，其下设长老和执事的职分，并有照顾寡妇孤儿的慈善机构。据说，教牧书信所呈现的正是这样的组织；这些书信以保罗的名义写成，是要借他权威的分量，支持初起的圣统制。³³⁸

但仔细考察，教牧书信中的教会体制与第二世纪的体制之间，有着极其明显的差别。其中没有一句话论及主教制的神圣起源；丝毫不见伊格那丢书信 (Ignatian epistles) 中那种堂会主教制的踪迹，更不用说爱任纽和德尔图良时代的教区主教制了。监督与长老仍是同一职分，正如《使徒行传》20:17、28，以及真实性无可置疑的《腓立比书》1:1所呈现的那样。甚至提摩太和提多，也只是以承担特定使命的使徒代表身份出现。³³⁹ 对监督所要求的资格和职能，是善于教导及无可指责的品格；他们的权威取决于道德品格，而不在于职分。经文假定他们是已婚的人，并要在管理自己的家上作好榜样。提摩太所受的按立（提摩太前书4:14；5:22），不必认为有别于《使徒行传》6:6；8:17所述执事和长老的按立（比较14:23；19:6）。本身属于圣公会的普伦普特雷博士 (Dr. Plumptre) 说：“这些书信中，很少有什么特点比完全不见高阶圣统制度更为显著。”这些批评家如此自信地断定写于68年的《启示录》，在七教会的“使者”身上，倒显出更接近主教式统一的形态。但即使从《启示录》的“使者”，到伊格那丢及伪克莱门文献中的主教，仍有很长一段距离；后者被树立为活的神谕和圣统制的偶像。

文体

教牧书信的语言中，出现了数量异乎寻常的非保罗惯用词语，尤其是罕见的复合词，其中有些在整部《新约》，甚至在希腊文学中，都找不到别的用例。³⁴⁰

但首先，这三封书信中每一封各自独有的词语，远比三封共同具有的特殊词语多；因此，这个论证若真能证明什么，所得的结论就应当是它们出自三个不同的作者，而攻击者鉴于这些书信总体上的一致性，是不肯承认这一点的。其次，保罗的每一封书信都有一些独有词语，连短小的《腓利门书》也不例外。³⁴¹ 最有特色的词语，是所处理的新题目和所反对的异端之性质所要求的，例如“似是而非的学问”（ψευδώνυμος^* γνῶσις^*，提摩太前书6:20）、“健全的教训”（ὑγιαίνουσα^* διδασκαλία^*，提摩太书1:10）、“犹太人的荒渺言语”（提多书1:14）、“家谱”（提多书3:9）、“世俗的虚谈”（提摩太后书2:16）。保罗的思想异常丰富，能够适应不同的处境，而且必须在一定程度上创制基督徒的表达方式。图宾根学派的批评家声称极其钦佩他的天才，却又要把他的词汇局限在极狭小的范围内。最后，更强烈的相似之处，以及表明保罗作者身份的确凿证据，足以抵消这些文体上的特点。“其中有至深情感的闪光，有最强烈表达的迸发。颂荣中有韵律的流动和卓越的庄严；所描绘的基督徒牧者理想，不仅笔法坚定，而且优美、丰满、简朴，纵有后来一千年的经验，也无人能够比肩，更不用说超越。”³⁴²

另一方面，我们大可以要求反对者提出充分的理由：一个伪作者既然很容易把自己限制在保罗其他书信的词汇范围内，为何偏要选用这么多新词？为何不沿用通常的问安形式，反而加上“怜悯”？为何称保罗为“罪人中的罪魁”（提摩太前书1:15），并装出谦卑的口吻，而不是采用使徒崇高权威的语气？

其他异议

有人指责这些书信缺乏逻辑联系，行文突兀、单调而重复，不配出自保罗这样富有独创性的思想家和作家。但这一特点，无非是私人通信所特有的轻松、亲切，甚至可以说随意的文风；这既构成它的魅力，也构成它的缺点。况且，每一位伟大作家，在人生的不同时期，以及不同的处境和心情下，多少都会有所变化。

如果能证明这些书信的神学与公认出自保罗的著作相冲突，那才是一个更严重的异议。³⁴³ 但事实并非如此。有人说，这些书信更强调纯正的教训和善行。然而，保罗在《加拉太书》中，极其郑重地谴责一切偏离真正福音的行为（加拉太书1:8、9），并且在所有书信中都吩咐人追求圣洁，视之为信心不可缺少的凭据；而教牧书信也同《罗马书》一样，明确地把救恩唯独归于上帝的恩典（提摩太前书1:9；提多书3:5）。

总而言之，虽然我们不能对某些困难视而不见，也可能由于不了解作者的确切处境，无法作出令人满意的解释，但我们必须坚持：占优势的证据支持这些书信的真实性。它们与保罗的教义体系相符；其中闪耀着他的天才之光；带有他鲜明个性的印记；包含受默示之真理的稀世珍宝，以及最有益的劝诫和忠告，使它们在今日远比不论多少部牧会神学和教会治理的著作都更有价值。其中不少经文，无论就教义还是实践而言，都不逊于他所写过的最佳篇章，并且深深扎根于基督教世界的经验与情感之中。³⁴⁴

对于这样一位信心的英雄，还有什么结语，能比他在殉道迫在眉睫时所写的最后一封书信的末了之言，更为贴切，也更为崇高优美呢：“我现在已被浇奠，我离世的时候到了。那美好的仗我已经打过了，当跑的路我已经跑尽了，所信的道我已经守住了。从此以后，有公义的冠冕为我存留，就是按着公义审判的主到了那日要赐给我的；不但赐给我，也赐给凡爱慕他显现的人。”

附注

施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher) 于1807年率先发难，攻击《提摩太前书》，极其敏锐地提出历史、语文学及其他方面的异议，却认定《提摩太后书》和《提多书》是真实的原作，而前书则是据此编成的。德韦特 (DeWette) 在其《导论》(Introduction) 中继起响应。鲍尔 (Baur) 更进一步，在其划时代的论著《所谓教牧书信》(Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe, 1835年) 中，将三封书信一并否定。追随他的有施韦格勒 (Schwegler，1846年)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1875年)、曼戈尔德 (Mangold)、申克尔 (Schenkel)、豪斯拉特 (Hausrath)、普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer，在其《保罗主义》〔Paulinismus〕及《新教圣经》〔Protestanten-Bibel, 1874年〕的注释中均持此论)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)；还有埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、勒南 (Renan，《基督教会》〔L’Église chrétienne, 第85页及后〕) 和萨姆·戴维森 (Sam. Davidson，《导论》〔Introd., 修订版，第II卷，第21页及后〕)。反对这些书信真实性的最详尽著作，是霍尔茨曼的《教牧书信的批判与释经研究》(Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exeg. behandelt, 莱比锡，1880年，504页)；另参其《导论》(Einleitung, 1886年)。

罗伊斯 (Reuss，《保罗书信》〔Les épitres Pauliniennes, 1878年，第II卷，第243页及下页、第307页及下页〕及《新约史》〔Gesch. des N. T, 1887年，第257页及后〕) 否定《提摩太前书》和《提多书》，却承认《提摩太后书》，将它归于保罗第一次在罗马被囚的时期。他认为，若不是与那些可疑的书信相伴，《提摩太后书》决不会受到怀疑。有些反对者，如普弗莱德雷尔和勒南，觉得不得不承认其中含有若干真正出自保罗的书信或短札片段，因而削弱了反对论证的力量。这三封书信必须同立同倒：或者全出于保罗，或者全是伪托保罗的作品。

为其真实性作出有力辩护的，有盖里克 (Guericke)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、许特尔 (Huther)、维辛格 (Wiesinger)、奥托 (Otto)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、范奥斯特泽 (Van Oosterzee)、兰格 (Lange)、赫尔佐格 (Herzog)、冯·霍夫曼 (von Hofmann)、贝克 (Beck)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、格洛格 (Gloag)、费尔贝恩 (Fairbairn，《教牧书信》〔Past. Ep., 1874年〕)、法勒 (Farrar，《圣保罗》〔St. Paul, 第II卷，第607页及后〕)、韦斯 (Wace，载《议长圣经注释·新约》〔Speaker’s Com. New Test., 第III卷，1881年，第749页及后〕)、普兰普特里 (Plumptre，载沙弗《新约注释》〔Com. on the New Test., 第III卷，1882年，第550页及后〕)、克林 (Kölling，《提摩太前书》〔Der erste Br. a. Tim.，1882年〕)、萨蒙 (Salmon，1885年) 和魏斯 (Weiss，1886年)。

§ 100. 《希伯来书》

I. 《希伯来书》注释的作者有：金口约翰 (Chrysostom，卒于407年，ἑρμηνεία^*，共34篇讲道，死后由安提阿的一位长老康斯坦丁努斯〔Constantinus〕刊行)；狄奥多勒 (Theodoret，卒于457年)；俄库美纽 (Oecumenius，10世纪)；狄奥菲拉克特 (Theophylact，11世纪)；托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas，卒于1274年)；伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus，卒于1536年，《新约注解》〔Annotationes in N. T., 随其希腊文新约于1516年刊行，后屡次重印〕及《新约释义》〔Paraphrasis in N. T., 1522年，后屡次重印〕)；枢机主教卡耶坦 (Card. Cajetanus，《保罗书信》〔Epistolae Pauli〕等，1531年)；加尔文 (Calvin，卒于1564年，《保罗诸书信及希伯来书注释》〔Com. in omnes P. Ep. atque etiam in Ep. ad Hebraeos, 1539年，后屡次重印，另有哈雷1831年版〕)；贝扎 (Beza，卒于1605年，译文及注释，1557年，后屡次重印；对英王钦定本有很大影响)；许佩里乌斯 (Hyperius，任职于马尔堡，卒于1564年)；戴维·帕雷乌斯 (Dav. Pareus，卒于1615年，《希伯来书注释》〔Com. in Ep. ad Hebr.〕)；科内利乌斯·阿·拉皮德 (Corn. A Lapide，耶稣会士，卒于1637年，《保罗诸书信注释》〔Com. in omnes Pauli Epp., 1627年，后屡次重印〕)；威廉·埃斯提乌斯 (Guil. Estius，杜埃的罗马天主教教授，1614年等版)；雅克·卡佩尔 (Jac. Cappellus，色当，1624年)；路易·卡佩尔 (Lud. Cappellus，日内瓦，1632年)；格劳秀斯 (Grotius，卒于1645年，阿民念派，杰出的古典学者与博学之士)；约翰·格哈德 (Joh. Gerhard，卒于1637年)；约翰·欧文 (John Owen，伟大的清教徒神学家，卒于1683年，《希伯来书研论》〔Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 伦敦，1668–80年，4卷，对开本；拉丁文译本，阿姆斯特丹，1700年；英文新版7卷，收入其《著作集》〔Works, 伦敦，1826年，全21卷〕；W. H. 古尔德〔W. H. Goold〕编《著作集》爱丁堡版，1850–55年，全24卷，费城1869年重印〕；查默斯〔Chalmers〕称它为“一部力量与篇幅同样宏大的著作”，其中包含了清教徒神学的整个体系)；雅克·皮尔斯 (Jac. Pierce，不从国教者，卒于1726年)；赛克斯 (Sykes，卒于1756年)；卡普佐夫 (Carpzov，卒于1803年，《研论》〔Exercitat.〕等，1750年)；J. D. 米夏埃利斯 (J. D. Michaelis，第2版，1780–86年，2卷)；罗森米勒 (Rosenmüller，1793年)；施托尔 (Storr，卒于1805年；图宾根，1789年)；伯梅 (Böhme，莱比锡，1825年)；摩西·斯图尔特 (Mos. Stuart，安多弗，1827年，2卷；第4版由罗宾斯〔Robbins〕删节修订，1860年)；屈讷尔 (Kühnöl，1831年)；弗里德里希·布莱克 (Friedrich Bleek，波恩教授，卒于1859年；大型注释共3卷，柏林，1836–40年，是一部释经杰作，极其博学，富于批判精神，坦诚而明断，虽持自由立场，仍深怀敬虔；其《希伯来书讲义》〔Lectures on Hebrews〕在他死后由温德拉特〔Windrath〕于1868年编辑出版)；托卢克 (Tholuck，汉堡，1836年，题献给本森〔Bunsen〕；第3版，1850年；詹姆斯·汉密尔顿〔James Hamilton〕译，爱丁堡，1852年)；施蒂尔 (Stier，1842年)；德韦特 (DeWette，1847年，第2版)；埃布拉德 (Ebrard，1850年，载奥尔斯豪森〔Olshausen〕的《注释》第v卷；英译本，爱丁堡，1853年)；特纳 (Turner，新版，纽约，1855年)；桑普森 (Sampson，达布尼〔Dabney〕编，纽约，1856年)；吕内曼 (Lünemann，载迈耶〔Meyer〕的《注释》，1857年；第4版，1878年)；德里奇 (Delitzsch，1857年；Th. L. 金斯伯里〔Th. L. Kingsbury〕译，爱丁堡，1868年，2卷)；约翰·布朗 (John Brown，爱丁堡，1862年，2卷)；罗伊斯 (Reuss，法文，1862年)；林赛 (Lindsay，爱丁堡，1867年，2卷)；莫尔 (Moll，载兰格的《注释》〔Com.〕，肯德里克〔Kendrick〕翻译并增补，1868年)；里普利 (Ripley，1868年)；库尔茨 (Kurtz，1869年)；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald，1870年)；霍夫曼 (Hofmann，1873年)；比森塔尔 (Biesenthal，1878年)；布卢姆菲尔德 (Bloomfield)；阿尔福德 (Alford)；华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)；W. 凯 (W. Kay，载《议长圣经注释·新约》〔Speaker’s Com. N. T, 第iv卷，1882年〕)；莫尔顿 (Moulton，载埃利科特〔Ellicott〕的《英语读者注释》〔Com. for English Readers〕)；A. B. 戴维森 (A. B. Davidson，爱丁堡新学院，1882年)；安格斯 (Angus，1883年)；萨姆·T. 劳里 (Sam. T. Lowrie，1884年)；魏斯 (Weiss，1888年)。

对本书信教义体系阐述最为详尽的，是里姆 (Riehm，1888年卒于哈雷)：《希伯来书的教义观》(Der Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefs, 巴塞尔及路德维希堡，1858–59年，2卷；新版，1867年，合为1卷，899页)。参看尼安德 (Neander)、梅斯纳 (Messner)、鲍尔、罗伊斯和魏斯的阐释。关于旧约的运用，见托卢克：《新约中的旧约》(Das A. T. im N., 汉堡，第3版，1849年)；关于本书信的基督论，见拜施拉格 (Beyerschlag)：《新约基督论》(Christologie des N. T., 1866年)，第176页及后；关于麦基洗德的祭司职任，见奥伯伦 (Auberlen) 载于1857年《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken) 的文章，第453页及后。普弗莱德雷尔在其《保罗主义》(Paulinismus, 第324–366页) 中，将《希伯来书》与《歌罗西书》及《巴拿巴书信》一并论述，视为受亚历山大学派思想影响的保罗主义之代表。
关于导论问题，参看诺顿 (Norton) 载于《基督教评论》(Christian Examiner, 波士顿，1827–29年) 的文章；奥尔斯豪森：《论希伯来书的作者》(De auctore Ep. ad Hebraeos, 载《神学小品集》〔Opusc. theol., 1834年〕)；维泽勒：《希伯来书研究》(Untersuchung über den Hebraeerbrief, 基尔，1861年)；J. H. 塞耶 (J. H. Thayer)：《希伯来书的作者与正典地位》(Authorship and Canonicity of the to the Hebrews, 载《圣经文库》〔Bibliotheca Sacra, 安多弗，1867年〕)；察恩 (Zahn) 载于赫尔佐格《百科全书》(Encykl., 第v卷，1879年，第656–671页) 的文章；以及各《圣经辞典》和《大英百科全书》(Encycl. Brit., 第9版，第xi卷，第602页及后) 中的条目。

这封匿名的“致希伯来人”的书信，与《约伯记》一样，属于麦基洗德 (Melchizedek) 的等次，兼具祭司的恩膏与君王的尊荣，却“无父，无母，无族谱，无生之始，无命之终”（希伯来书7:1–3）。它的来历虽不明，对基督的认识却清晰而深刻。它出自第二代基督徒（2:3），却充满五旬节的灵感。它虽无法追溯到任何一位使徒，却以使徒的权柄和能力施教、劝勉、警戒。虽非保罗手笔，却不知如何带有他天才与影响的印记，完全配在正典中占据一席之地，列在他的书信之后，或列在他的书信与大公书信之间。它的精神属于保罗，其目的则是普世性的，或说是通函性的。³⁴⁵

内容

《希伯来书》不是一封普通的书信。诚然，它具有书信中直接向个人发出的呼吁、末了的嘱咐和问安；但它不止于此，它是一篇讲章，更确切地说，是一篇神学论说，旨在坚固读者的基督教信仰，保护他们免于背弃基督教的危险。它深刻论证了基督超越天使、超越摩西、超越利未祭司职任，以及第二个约的终极性。它比其他任何一卷书都更充分地阐明了这一伟大思想：基督永远的祭司职任，以及他为救赎世界一次而永远献上的祭；这与摩西祭司制度的民族性、暂时性，以及会幕和圣殿中不断重复的献祭，截然不同。作者从旧约本身引出论据，表明旧约的整个性质及其明确宣告，都显示它是为福音救恩作预备的安排，是基督教富有意义的预表与预言，因此注定要消逝，如同永存实体的暂时影儿。他暗示，摩西的体制及其祭司和每日的献祭仍然存在，却正在衰败之中；他也展望那可怕的审判，几年之后，这审判便将圣殿永远毁灭了。³⁴⁶ 他将恳切动人的劝诫和宝贵的安慰穿插于教义阐释之中，而每一番劝勉又引向新的阐释。保罗则通常把劝勉部分置于末尾。

作者无疑属于保罗学派；这一学派强调旧约与新约之间的重大区别，同时又充分承认旧约出于上帝，并具有训育作用。不过，他所突出的是基督的祭司职任和献祭超越摩西的祭司职任和献祭；保罗则主要论述律法与福音的区别。他最为着重的是信心，却从一般意义上将其呈现为对上帝的信靠，着眼于它对未来及不可见之事的展望，以及它与盼望、在苦难中坚忍之间的联系；保罗则从信心特有的福音性质来描述它，视之为对基督及其赎罪功德的衷心信靠，并着眼于它使人称义的功效，与律法主义式的倚靠行为相对立。信被定义为，或至少被描述为“所望之事的确据（ὑπόστασις^*），未见之事的确信（ἔλεγχος^*）”（11:1）。这既适用于新约，也适用于旧约，因此用来引出列祖和先知的名录，十分恰当；这些人在基督徒争战之际给予他们鼓励；然而，他们更应当仰望耶稣，就是“我们信心的创始成终者”（12:2），因为归根结底，他是我们信心永不改变的对象，“昨日、今日、一直到永远，是一样的”（13:8）。

本书信具有鲜明的基督论性质。在这一点上，它与《歌罗西书》和《腓立比书》相似，并成为通向约翰基督论的阶石。从《希伯来书》1:1–4对基督的高升与威严所作的崇高描述（参歌罗西书1:15–20），到第四福音书的序言，仅有一步之遥。对基督大祭司职任的阐释，使人想起他的大祭司祷告（约翰福音17章）。

作者引用旧约经文作论据，有时似乎与经文显明的历史意义相悖，却总是构思巧妙，对犹太读者无疑具有说服力。他不区分预表性的预言与直接的预言。他承认会幕及其礼仪具有预表性，或更确切地说，具有摹本的性质，因为它们反映了摩西在山上所见的原型；但他将一切弥赛亚预言都解释为直接的预言（希伯来书1:5–14；2:11–13；10:5–10）。全书处处显出他高度的希腊文化修养，以及对希腊文圣经和摩西敬拜礼仪之象征意义的深刻认识。³⁴⁷ 他也熟悉斐洛 (Philo) 的亚历山大神智学，³⁴⁸ 却从不像斐洛以寓意解经所做的那样，将外来的观念引入圣经。他的劝勉与警告直触人道德感受的最深处；然而，他的语调也令人振奋，给人鼓励。他以最高的程度拥有劝勉与安慰的恩赐 (charisma)。³⁴⁹ 总而言之，他是一个充满信心和圣灵、蒙赐火焰之舌的人。

文体

《希伯来书》所用的希腊文，比新约任何一卷书都更为纯正，唯独路加著作中那些不依赖先前文献的部分例外。这封书信与第三福音书一样，以一个结构古典、丰美典雅的圆周句开篇。第十一章对信心伟人的描绘，是整个宗教文学史中最雄辩、最崇高的篇章之一。作者常以由小及大（a minori ad majus；εἰ ... πόσῳ μᾶλλον^*）的方式推论。他采用了许多罕见而精妙的词语，在新约其他地方均未出现。³⁵⁰

与那些确属保罗所写的书信相比，《希伯来书》的文体少了几分炽烈与雄劲，却更为流畅、准确，更讲究修辞与韵律，也没有句法中断和语法失范的现象。它没有那种冲破常规的奔涌与激越，而是平静有序的言语之流。句子结构精巧，圆熟完整。保罗一心专注于思想；《希伯来书》的作者显然十分注意形式。他的文体虽非严格意义上的古典文体，却已在通用希腊语及其与《七十士译本》的密切关系所容许的范围内，达到了纯正的程度。

这一切考量，都排除了本书译自某个假定的希伯来文原本的说法。

读者

这封书信是写给希伯来基督徒的；按照希伯来人与说希腊话的犹太人之间通常的区分（使徒行传6:1；9:27），这就是指巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 归信的犹太人，主要是耶路撒冷的信徒。本书尤其适合他们。他们生活在圣殿近旁，受到祭司统治阶层的逼迫，也面临背道的诱惑。从屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 到布利克 (Bleek) 的时代，这一直是占优势的看法。³⁵¹ 有人反对说，本书引用旧约一律依据《七十士译本》；但这并非决定性的理由，因为在巴勒斯坦，《七十士译本》无疑与希伯来文原本并行使用。

其他一些多少不大可信的看法，只须列举如下：(1) 所有区别于外邦人的犹太基督徒；³⁵² (2) 仅限耶路撒冷的犹太人；³⁵³ (3) 亚历山大 (Alexandria) 的犹太人；³⁵⁴ (4) 安提阿 (Antioch) 的犹太人；³⁵⁵ (5) 罗马的犹太人；³⁵⁶ (6) 东方某个散居犹太人的群体（但不在耶路撒冷）。³⁵⁷

写作缘由与目的

写作这封书信，是为了在读者所受的试炼与逼迫中坚固、安慰他们（希伯来书10:32–39；11、12章），但尤其是为了警告他们，提防背道重归犹太教的危险（2:2、3；3:6、14；4:1、14；6:1–8；10:23、26–31）。要达到这一目的，最好的办法就是显明基督教无限的优越性，以及忽略如此浩大的救恩所招致的可怕罪责。

奇怪的是，在基督复活和五旬节圣灵浇灌之后仅仅三十年，基督教世界的母会本身竟会面临这种背道的危险。然而，若明白60至70年间的情势，这也就不足为奇了。耶路撒冷的基督徒是所有信徒中最为保守的，尽可能紧守祖宗的传统。他们满足于初步的教义，需要有人催促他们“竭力进到完全的地步”（5:12；6:1–4）。《雅各书》代表了他们在教义上的立场。保罗最后一次到访时，雅各给这位弟兄的那番奇怪劝告，反映出他们的怯懦与狭隘。他们虽数以“万”计，却在那个危急关头，丝毫没有设法从狂热的犹太人手中救出这位伟大的使徒；他们“都为律法热心”，听说保罗教导散居的犹太人“离弃摩西，对他们说，不要给孩子行割礼，也不要遵行条规”，便对保罗的激进立场感到恐惧（使徒行传21:20、21）。

他们在无望中仍盼望自己的同胞归信。当这一希望日益消散，当他们的一些教师已经殉道（希伯来书13:7），当他们敬重的领袖雅各被犹太人用石头打死（62年），当旨在使巴勒斯坦脱离可恨的异教罗马人之轭的爱国运动愈演愈烈，终于爆发为公开叛乱（66年），这些怯懦的基督徒自然会受到强烈诱惑，想要背弃这个贫困而受逼迫的教派，重归民族的宗教；他们心里仍相信，后者乃是基督教最好的部分。圣殿庄严的礼拜、亚伦祭司制度隆重华美的仪式、每日的献祭，以及与往昔相连的一切神圣情怀，对他们仍有极大的魅力，诱使他们重投其怀抱。这危险极其严重，而书信中的警告也庄严得令人战栗。

在历史的危急时期，类似的危险曾一再出现。

写作时间与地点

本书信出自意大利 (Italy) 某地，并从那里向读者问安；当时保罗的门徒提摩太已经获释，作者正准备与提摩太一同探望读者（13:23、24）。“你们要记念被捆绑的人，好像与他们同受捆绑”（13:3），这句话不一定意味着他自己身在狱中；事实上，13:23似乎表明他是自由的。这些记载自然使人想到保罗在罗马第一次被囚即将结束的时期，也就是63年春季，或稍后不久；因为提摩太和路加当时都在那里与他同在，而作者本人显然也属于他的朋友与同工圈子。

此外，还有内证表明，这封信写于耶路撒冷被毁（70年）、犹太战争爆发（66年）、尼禄的逼迫开始（64年7月）以及保罗殉道之前。这些重大事件，书中甚至没有暗示；³⁵⁸ 相反，如前所述，圣殿仍然屹立，每日的献祭仍照常进行，神权体制的灭亡仍是将来的事，虽然它已“近于咒诅”，“渐旧渐衰，快归无有”；它已被“震动”，即将被挪去；那可怕审判的日子正在临近。³⁵⁹

写作地点或是罗马，或是意大利南部某地——若我们假定作者已经启程东行的话。³⁶⁰ 另有人认为是在亚历山大、安提阿或以弗所 (Ephesus)。³⁶¹

作者问题

这仍是一个有争议的问题，可能永远无法绝对确切地解决。《希伯来书》的来源不明，正是它在尼西亚会议以前的教会中被列入七卷有争议的书卷（Antilegomena）的原因。397年传统正典被采纳之后，这场争论便告平息，却在宗教改革时期再度兴起。各种理论可归为三类：(1) 保罗独自执笔；(2) 他的一位门徒独自执笔；(3) 保罗与他的一位门徒共同写作。至于这位门徒是谁，各种意见又分别指向路加、巴拿巴、罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)、西拉 (Silvanus) 和亚波罗 (Apollos)。³⁶²

保罗著作说。从第四世纪到第十八世纪，除宗教改革者外，这一直是教会中占优势的意见，一度几乎成为信条；但如今在学者中，已很少有人为之辩护。³⁶³ 它以下列论据为基础：

(a) 东方教会一致的传统；这封信极有可能正是写给东方教会的。然而，这一见证有一个重要的限制，削弱了它的效力：人们普遍察觉本书文体有别于保罗，因而假定它有一个希伯来文原本，但这一假定毫无历史根据。亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 认为希腊文文本出于路加。³⁶⁴ 奥利金 (Origen) 注意到其希腊文文体更为纯正，³⁶⁵ 除保罗以外，也提到路加与革利免可能是作者，却承认自己并不知道。³⁶⁶

(b) 提及提摩太以及从囚禁中获释的事（希伯来书13:23），指向保罗。这并非必然，只能指向保罗的圈子。所谓10:34提到保罗本人被囚的说法，是建立在错误的异读之上（δεσμοῖς μου^*，英文译本〔E. V.〕译作“在我受捆绑的时候”，而不是如今普遍采用的τοῖς δεσμίοις^*，即“那些被捆绑的人”）。13:18、19的请求也不意味着作者写作时身在狱中；因为13:23反而指向他的自由，他盼望不久便能与提摩太一同去见读者。

非保罗著作说，有以下论据支持：

(a) 西方的传统，无论罗马还是北非，直到奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 的时代，都明确反对保罗著作说。这一点尤有分量，因为《希伯来书》最早的踪迹见于罗马教会，在第一世纪结束以前，那里就已知道本书。罗马的革利免大量使用本书，却从未将它归于保罗名下。《穆拉多利正典目录》 (Muratorian Canon) 只列举保罗的十三封书信，未收《希伯来书》。第三世纪初罗马的长老该犹 (Gaius) 也是如此。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 将本书归于巴拿巴。据优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的见证，在他那个时代（他卒于340年），罗马教会并不认为本书出于保罗。布雷西亚的菲拉斯特里乌斯 (Philastrius of Brescia，约卒于387年) 提到，有人否认本书出于保罗，因为6:4–6支持诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 的异端及其过度严厉的纪律；但他自己相信本书出于保罗，米兰的安布罗斯 (Ambrose of Milan) 也持同样看法。双方都可以引用哲罗姆 (Jerome，卒于419年) 的话。他自己的意见曾有摇摆，却明确说：“拉丁教会的惯例（Latina consuetudo）不将它列入正典圣经”；又在另一处说：“所有希腊人都接纳《希伯来书》，一些拉丁人也是如此（et nonnulli Latinorum）。”奥古斯丁是一位深刻的神学家，却既非语言学家，也非批判学者；他同样摇摆不定，但强烈倾向于本书源于保罗。西方占优势的意见只将十三封书信归于保罗。在奥古斯丁的主导影响下，希坡会议 (Synod of Hippo，393年) 与第三次迦太基会议 (Synod of Carthage，397年) 标志着意见转向十四封。³⁶⁷ 这一意见一直占据优势，直到伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 与宗教改革者重新提出早期教父的疑问。特伦托会议 (Council of Trent) 则正式认可了这一意见。

(b) 缺少惯常的署名与问安。对此，有人解释为出于谦逊，因为保罗奉差遣是到外邦人那里，而非犹太人那里（潘代努〔Pantaenus〕）；或解释为出于审慎，希望那些对保罗怀有强烈偏见的犹太人能更乐意听取书中的话（亚历山大的革利免）。这些解释很不令人满意，本书信所具有的权威语气也使它们不能成立。

(c) 在2:3，作者明确将自己与使徒区分开来，并将自己列于第二代基督徒之中；主的道是由那些起初亲耳听见主的人“给我们证实了”。相反，保罗将自己与其他使徒并列，并宣称自己的教义直接得自基督，没有任何人的居间传授（加拉太书1:1、12、15、16）。单凭这一段就足以定论；路德 (Luther)、加尔文 (Calvin) 和贝扎 (Beza) 正是因此断然反对保罗著作说。³⁶⁸

(d) 在教导与论证上存在差异，不是实质的差异，而是形式与方法的差异。³⁶⁹

(e) 文体的差异（前已讨论）。这一论据并不以特有词语的数目为依据，因为新约每卷书都有这样的词语；它所依据的，是本书文体更为纯正、准确，修辞也更为精美。

(f) 引用旧约的方式不同。《希伯来书》的作者一律遵循《七十士译本》，即使它偏离希伯来文原文也不例外；保罗则较为独立，常依据希伯来文修正《七十士译本》。布利克还发现了一个重要事实：前者使用《亚历山大抄本》 (Codex Alexandrinus) 的文本，后者使用《梵蒂冈抄本》 (Codex Vaticanus) 的文本。³⁷⁰ 保罗若写信给耶路撒冷教会，竟在引用圣经时不运用自己的希伯来文与拉比学识，这是难以置信的。

3 关于可能作者的推测。保罗的四位门徒和同工曾被提出，或被视为独立作者，或被视为与保罗合著者；其中三位多少有传统的支持——巴拿巴 (Barnabas)、路加 (Luke) 和革利免 (Clement)——一位则全无传统的支持，即亚波罗 (Apollos)。西拉 (Silvanus) 著作说也有少数拥护者。³⁷¹

(a) 巴拿巴。³⁷² 对他有利的依据，是非洲教会的传统（至少有德尔图良的见证）、他所受的利未人训练、他与保罗的亲密关系、他与耶路撒冷教会的密切联系，以及他近乎使徒的权威。他既是“劝慰之子”（υἱὸς παρακλήσεως^*，使徒行传4:36），就可能写下这篇“劝勉的话”（λόγος παρακλήσεως^*，希伯来书13:22）。但若如此，他就不可能是那封以他名字流传的书信的作者；那封书信虽属保罗派，具有强烈反对犹太化的倾向，其精神与智慧却远逊于《希伯来书》。此外，巴拿巴是最初一代的门徒，不能列入第二代之中（2:3）。

(b) 路加。³⁷³ 他符合2:3的描述，所写希腊文纯正，文体上也有许多相近之处。³⁷⁴ 但不利于此说的事实是，《希伯来书》的作者无疑是生来为犹太人的，而路加却是外邦人（歌罗西书4:11、14）。不过，若路加是奉保罗之名、在他的指导下写作，这一异议便在一定程度上不复存在。

(d) 亚波罗。³⁷⁶ 这是路德 (Luther) 凭其天才作出的巧妙猜测，启发来自《使徒行传》18:24–28及保罗对亚波罗的描述（哥林多前书1:12；3:4–6、22；4:6；16:12；提多书3:13）。亚波罗是亚历山大 (Alexandria) 的犹太人，最能讲解圣经，心里火热，口才出众，大有能力地驳倒犹太人；他是保罗的朋友，在以弗所、哥林多、克里特独立工作，与保罗同为一个事业效力。到此为止，一切似乎都很吻合。但这一假说在传统中连一丝支持也没有，而传统在列举三四位可能的作者时，几乎不可能对亚波罗缄口不提。革利免曾提到他一次，³⁷⁷ 却没有说他是那封自己如此广泛引用的书信的作者。也没有任何迹象表明他曾到过罗马，或曾与巴勒斯坦的希伯来基督徒有过如此密切的关系。

现代神学家博学的讨论虽未达成确切而一致的结论，却仍极有价值，从不同方面带来了光照。以下各点可以视为已经确定，或至少具有极高的可能性：《希伯来书》的作者生来是犹太人；是希腊化的犹太人，而非巴勒斯坦人；精通希腊文圣经（对希伯来文原文则不那么熟悉，甚至可能全不熟悉）；熟悉亚历山大的犹太神学（对巴勒斯坦的拉比学问则不那么熟悉，甚至可能全不熟悉）；是使徒的学生（本身并非使徒）；是保罗的一位具有独立性的门徒和同工；是提摩太的朋友；与巴勒斯坦的希伯来基督徒关系密切，写作时正准备去探望他们；是一个受默示的人，具有使徒般的洞察力、能力和权威，因此配以“伟大的无名者”的身份，在正典中占有一席之地。

超出这些特征，我们就无法稳妥地再作推断。作者有意隐去自己的名字。支持巴拿巴、路加和亚波罗的论据，以及反对他们的异议，都同样有力；我们没有资料可以在他们之间作出判断，更不用说使徒时期其他较不知名的工人了。我们仍须与俄利根 (Origen) 一同承认：只有上帝知道《希伯来书》的作者是谁。

附注

I.—《希伯来书》在新约中的位置。在古老的希腊文抄本（a、B、C、D）中，《希伯来书》列在教牧书信之前，被当作公认的保罗书信。这一次序或许具有年代学上的价值，拉赫曼 (Lachmann)、蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)、特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)、韦斯科特 (Westcott) 与霍特 (Hort) 的校勘本都采用了它，尽管韦斯科特与霍特认为教牧书信出于保罗，而《希伯来书》并非出于保罗。见他们的《希腊文新约》(Gr. Test.)，第II卷，第321页。

但在拉丁文和英文圣经中，《希伯来书》更为恰当地列在保罗书信的末尾，紧接着便是大公书信。

路德对《希伯来书》和《雅各书》有一些教义上的异议，便自行将它们置于彼得和约翰的书信之后，使它们成为除《犹大书》之外最后的书信。他误解了《希伯来书》6:4–6；10:26、27；12:17，以为这些经文排除了受洗之后再次悔改并蒙赦免的可能，称这些经文为“难解的结”，与全部福音书及保罗书信相抵触；但除此之外，他又宣称《希伯来书》是“一封精美绝伦的书信，以娴熟的技巧和透彻的论述，根据圣经讨论基督的祭司职分，并以极其丰富而敏锐的见解，就这一点解释旧约”。

英国修订者在没有任何文献证据的情况下，保留了传统书名《使徒保罗致希伯来人书》。这就认可了某一种特定的理论，美国修订者对此提出异议是恰当的。至少可以说，保罗著作说仍是一个悬而未决的问题，修订者本应让它继续保持开放。古代权威文献仅将这封信题为Πρὸς Ἑβραίους^*（致希伯来人），即便这题名，也很可能是早期某位抄写者添上的。至于卷末题记“由提摩太从意大利写给希伯来人”，就更不能据以认定为原文了；它很可能只是从书信内容推断出来的（希伯来书13:23、24）。

II.—本书信的独有词。ἀγενεαλόγητος^*，无家谱（指麦基洗德），希伯来书7:3。ἀμήτωρ^*，无母，7:3。ἀπάτωρ^*，无父，7:3。ἀπαύγασμα^*，光辉（指基督与上帝的关系），1:2。αἰσθητήριον^*，感官，5:14。ἀκροθίνιον^*，掳物，7:4。εὐπερίστατος^*（来自εὖ^*和περιίστημι^*，置于周围），一个难解而释义未定的词，意为容易缠累的、紧紧缠住的（英国修订本旁注：为许多人所仰慕的），12:1。 κριτικός^*，敏于辨别的，4:12。ἡ μέλλουσα οἰκουμένη^*，将来的世界，2:5。μεσιτεύειν^*，介入其间、作中保，6:17。μετριοπαθεῖν^*，怜悯、温和地体谅，5:2（指基督）。ὁρκωμοσία^*，誓言，7:20、21、28。παραπικραίνειν^*，惹动怒气，3:16。παραπικρασμός^*，惹动怒气，3:8、15。πολυμερῶς^*，分为许多部分，1:1。πολυτρόπως^*，以多种方式，1:1。πρόδρομος^*，先锋，6:20（指基督）。συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν^*，一同作见证，2:4。τραχηλίζειν^*，敞开，4:13（τετραχηλισμένα^*，敞露的）。ὑπόστασις^*，本质（或位格），1:3（指上帝）；信心，3:14；确据，11:1。不过，此词也出现于《哥林多后书》11:17，意为信心。χαρακτήρ^*，真像（基督，上帝本质的真像），希伯来书1:3。

另一方面，《希伯来书》与保罗的著作共有一些罕见词语，在新约其他地方或《七十士译本》中均不见，如αἰδώς^*（12:13；提摩太前书2:9）、ἀναθεωρέω^*（希伯来书13:7；使徒行传17:23）、ἀνυπότακτος^*（希伯来书2:8；提摩太前书1:9；提多书1:6、10）、ἀπείθεια^*（希伯来书4:6、11；罗马书11:30、32；以弗所书2:2；歌罗西书3:5）、ἀπόλαυσις^*（希伯来书11:25；提摩太前书6:17）、ἀφιλάργυρος^*（希伯来书13:5；提摩太前书3:3）、ἔνδικος^*（希伯来书2:1；罗马书3:8）、ἐνεργής^*（希伯来书4:12；哥林多前书16:9；腓利门书6）、ἐφάπαξ^*（希伯来书7:27；10:10；罗马书9:10；哥林多前书15:6）、κοσμικός^*（希伯来书9:11；提多书2:12）、μιμητής^*（希伯来书6:12；哥林多前书4:16等）、νεκρόω^*（希伯来书11:12；罗马书4:19；歌罗西书3:5）、ὀρέγομαι^*（希伯来书11:16；提摩太前书3:1；6:10）、παρακοή^*（希伯来书2:2；罗马书5:10；哥林多后书10:6）、πληροφορία^*（希伯来书6:11；10:22；歌罗西书2:2；帖撒罗尼迦前书1:5）、φιλοξενία^*（希伯来书13:2；罗马书12:13）。

关于《希伯来书》的语言特点，见布利克 (Bleek)，I. 315–338；吕内曼 (Lünemann)，《注释》(Com.)，第12及24页及后（第4版，1878年）；戴维森 (Davidson)，《导论》(Introd.)，I. 209及后（修订版，1882年）；以及《议长圣经注释·新约》(Speaker’s Com. N. T.)，IV. 7–16。

§ 101. 启示录

关于约翰的文献和生平，见本卷§§ 40、41；关于《启示录》的作者及写作年代，见本卷§ 37、§ 41及§ 84。

德国和法国学者关于《启示录》的现代批判性著作：吕克 (Lücke)，《完整导论》等（Voltständige Einleitung，第2版，1852年；批判性和历史性的导论材料共1,074页；可与布利克发表于1854及1855年《研究与评论》〔Studien and Kritiken〕的书评对照）；德韦特 (DeWette)，《注释》(Com.)，1848年，附有一篇引人注目的序言，默勒 (Möller) 编第3版，1862年；布利克（《遗著讲义》，霍斯巴赫〔Hossbach〕编，1862年）；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)，《约翰著作》(Die Johann. Schriften)，第II卷，1862年，此外还有他较早的拉丁文《注释》，1828年；迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck)（载迈耶〔Meyer〕《注释》〔Com.〕，第3版，1877年）；勒南 (Renan)，《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，1873年；罗伊斯 (Reuss)，1878年。A. 萨巴蒂耶 (A. Sabatier)，载利希滕贝格尔 (Lichtenberger)《百科全书》(Encyclopédie)，I. 396–407。E. 费舍尔 (E. Vischer)：《约翰启示录：一部经基督教改编的犹太启示书》(Die Offenb. Joh. eine Jüd. Apok. in christl. Bearbeitung)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1886年。F. 施皮塔 (F. Spitta)：《约翰启示录研究》(Die Offenb. Joh. untersucht)，哈雷 (Halle)，1889年。
教义和实用性的释义，见下列注释：亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)（1849年，因虚假的预言和任意的幻想而受损）；奥伯伦 (Auberlen)（论《但以理书与启示录》〔Daniel and Revelation〕，第2版，1854年）；戈森 (Gaussen)（《先知但以理》〔Daniel le prophète〕，1850年）；埃布拉德 (Ebrard)（载奥尔斯豪森〔Olshausen〕《注释》〔Com.〕，1853年）；路塔特 (Luthardt)（1861年）；J. C. K. 霍夫曼 (J. C. K. Hofmann)（1844及1862年）；J. L. 菲勒 (J. L. Füller)（追随霍夫曼，1874年）；兰格 (Lange)（1871年，克雷文〔Craven〕增订的美国版，1874年）；格布哈特 (Gebhardt)（《启示录的教义体系》〔Lehrbegriff der Apok.〕，1873年）；克利福特 (Kliefoth)（1874年）。亦参鲁日蒙 (Rougemont)：《圣约翰启示录对历史的阐释》(La Révélation de St. Jean expliquant l’histoire)（1866年）。戈代 (Godet)：《启示录论》(Essay upon the Apoc.)，载其《新约研究》(Studies on the N. T.)，W. H. 利特尔顿 (W. H. Lyttleton) 由法文译出，伦敦，1876年，第294–398页。
英国注释：E. H. 埃利奥特 (E. H. Elliott)（卒于1875年，《启示录研究》〔Horae Apoc.〕，第5版，1862年，4卷）；华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)（第4版，1866年）；阿尔福德 (Alford)（第3版，1866年）；C. J. 沃恩 (C. J. Vaughan)（第3版，1870年，偏重实用）；威廉·李 (William Lee)（都柏林会吏长，载《议长圣经注释·新约》〔Speaker’s Com. N. T.〕，第iv卷，1881年，第405–844页）；E. 亨廷福德 (E. Huntingford)（伦敦〔Lond.〕，1882年）；米利根 (Milligan)（1883及1886年，最佳）。特伦奇 (Trench)：《致七教会的书信》(The Epistles to the Seven Churches)（第2版，1861年）；以及普伦普特里 (Plumptre)：《致七教会书信释义》(Expos. of the Epp. to the Seven Ch.)（伦敦和纽约〔Lond. and N. Y.〕，1877年）。
美国注释：摩西·斯图亚特 (Moses Stuart)（1845年，2卷，新版1864年，附有一篇论兽之数目的专论，II. 452）；考尔斯 (Cowles)（1871年）。
较早的注释中，最重要而有价值的如下：

希腊文：卡帕多西亚凯撒利亚的安德烈 (Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia)（5世纪；第一部逐段解释《启示录》的注释，1596年出版，亦收入金口约翰〔Chrysostom〕的著作；见吕克，第983页）；卡帕多西亚凯撒利亚的阿瑞塔斯 (Arethas of Caes. in Cappad.)（并非吕克第990页及其他人所说的6世纪人物，而据奥托〔Otto〕及哈纳克〔Harnack〕《古代基督教文献》〔Altchristl. Liter.〕，1882年，第36页及后，应属10世纪；其《学术概要》〔σύνοψις σχολική^*〕由J. A. 克拉姆纳〔J. A. Cramner〕编辑，收入其《希腊教父新约连珠注》〔Catenae Graec. Patr. in N. T.〕，牛津〔Oxon.〕，1840年，第VIII卷；亦见于奥库梅尼乌斯的著作中）；奥库梅尼乌斯 (0ecumenius)（10世纪，见吕克，第991页）。
罗马天主教：路德维希·阿尔卡萨 (Lud. Ab Alcasar)（耶稣会士，1614年）；科内利乌斯·阿·拉皮德 (Cornelius A Lapide)（1662年）；波舒哀 (Bossuet)（1690年，亦见《全集》〔Oeuvres〕，第III卷，1819年）；比斯平 (Bisping)（1876年）。
新教：约瑟夫·米德 (Jos. Mede)（《启示录之钥》〔Clavis Apocalyptica〕，剑桥〔Cambr.〕，1632年；莫尔〔More〕英译本，1643年；R. B. 库珀〔R. B. Cooper〕新译本，伦敦〔Lond.〕，1833年）；雨果·格劳秀斯 (Hugo Grotius)（初版，1644年）；维特林加 (Vitringa)（1705、1719、1721年）；本格尔 (Bengel)（1740年）；托马斯·牛顿主教 (Bishop Thomas Newton)（载《预言论集》〔Dissertations on the Prophecies〕，8卷，1758年）。

这份书目只是一小部分选录。关于《启示录》的文献，尤其是英文文献，数量极大，但大多是把意思强加于经文，而非解释经文，因此毫无价值，甚至有害，因为它们令人混淆，导人歧途。达林 (Darling) 所列关于《启示录》的英文著作，几乎占了五十四栏（I.，1732–1786）。

《启示录》的总体特征

约翰的《启示录》，更确切地说，是借约翰传达的“耶稣基督的启示”，³⁷⁸恰当地为新约作了结束。它是新约中独一无二的预言书，却以我主关于耶路撒冷被毁、世界末了及他再临的讲论为基础（《马太福音》24章）。它一面回顾古时的预言，一面凝望未来。它在那位“阿拉法和俄梅戛”里面，将起初与末后联结起来。它使人想起那神秘的狮身人面像 (sphinx)，在大金字塔脚下睁目凝视，守望不息。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 说：“有多少字，就有多少奥秘”；路德 (Luther) 又说：“没有人知道其中究竟有什么。”³⁷⁹没有哪一卷书曾遭受更多的误解和滥用，也没有哪一卷书在解释时更需要谦逊和审慎。³⁸⁰

本书开头与结尾的几章，如阳光一般明朗耀目，即使最普通的基督徒，也能从中获得属灵的滋养与鼓励；但中间的异象，对大多数读者而言，却像午夜一样幽暗，然而仍有繁星与满月照亮黑暗。致七教会的书信、对天上耶路撒冷的描绘，以及穿插于神秘异象之中的颂歌和赞美诗，³⁸¹宛如华美的漆黑华盖上闪耀的璀璨珠宝，都是圣经中最优美、最崇高、最能造就人、最能激励人的篇章；它们理应使我们不至于对那些自己或许尚不能理解的章节遽下判断。旧约先知的预言，也是在应验的光照之下才得到清楚理解的；然而，这些书卷作为警戒、安慰和盼望那将临弥赛亚的书，仍发挥了极为有益的作用。唯有当新天新地出现时，《启示录》才会完全显明——在此以前，决不会如此。³⁸²

“先知，”持怀疑立场的德韦特 (DeWette) 在其最后一部著作《启示录注释》中说，“本质上是一个受默示的人，是上帝的解释者；他向人宣告上帝的话，是依照上帝已经在旧约中借摩西、在新约中借基督所启示的真理，并以此为限的（即ἀποκάλυψις μυστηρίου^*，《罗马书》16:25）。预言的根基，是相信上帝持续不断的护理统管全世界，并按照借摩西和基督所启示的道德律，尤其是报应之律，以特殊的功效治理以色列和基督的会众。按照世俗的观点，人间的一切变迁，一部分出于人的能力和审慎，一部分出于偶然，以及命运那隐而不见、不可抗拒的顽固力量；但按照先知的观点，一切都借上帝的作为而发生，并与他永恒不变的公义旨意相合；人则因顺服或抗拒上帝的旨意，而成为自己命运的塑造者。”³⁸³

圣经的预言满足了人想要知道未来的自然愿望；在那些充满恐惧与希望的重大危急时期，这种愿望尤为强烈。但它与异教的神谕和有远见者的推测迥然不同。它以启示为根基，而非人的聪明和猜想；它给予的是确定性，而不只是可能性；它是概括性的，而非具体细目的；它不是为了满足好奇心，而是为了造就人、使人向善。先知不仅是奥秘的揭示者，也是悔改的传道者、复兴的倡导者和安慰者；他们责备罪恶，坚固信心，鼓励盼望。

《启示录》在新约中的地位，正如《但以理书》在旧约中的地位；两者之间的差异，也正如新约与旧约之间的差异。两者都是先知性的宣告，述说上帝对于他地上国度之未来的旨意。两者都是争战中教会的书卷，将天与地、神的力量、人的力量和撒但的力量，都卷入一场生死搏斗之中。它们向前迈进，如“展开旌旗的军队，威武可畏”。它们回响着雷鸣，映照着宝座发出的闪电。然而，但以理所展望的是弥赛亚的第一次降临，承继此前的世界帝国；约翰所展望的则是基督的再临，以及新天新地。他汇集以往一切预言，使之更加丰富，并将之传向未来。他向我们保证，那关于伤蛇者的预言终必应验；这预言是在堕落之后，立即赐给我们始祖的，如同罪恶黑夜中指引方向的希望之星。他在天上新耶路撒冷降临的终曲中，将创造与救赎的荣耀融为一体。

《启示录》就写作形式而言，与《但以理书》一样，是用散文写成的，但它属于先知诗。这种诗为圣经所独有，在其中占据了希腊史诗的地位；可以说，上帝自己就是其中的主人公，掌管着人的命运。它是一部受默示的艺术作品，要理解它，需要诗人的想象力，而这种想象力在注释家和批评家中却鲜有所见；但想象力必须受到清醒判断的约束，否则就容易流于奇诡的解释，以致这些解释本身也需要注释。启示性的异象，是圣经先知诗最后、也最完备的形式。《启示录》与《但以理书》《以西结书》和《撒迦利亚书》之间的高度相似，是公认的；若没有这些书，就无法理解《启示录》。

但就诗的形式与布局而言，我们也可以将它与《约伯记》相比。两者都展现了地上的争战，而这争战受天上不可见的力量所支配。在《约伯记》中，这是上帝的一个仆人与撒但之间的争战；撒但是人类最大的毁谤者和逼迫者，蒙上帝许可，利用财产的损失、身体的痛苦、心灵的煎熬、扰人的疑惑、家庭的患难，以及虚伪无情的朋友，企图使约伯败亡。在《启示录》中，则是基督及其教会与反基督的世界之间的争战。两者的场景都始于天上；两者的战争都以胜利告终。不过，在《约伯记》中，奖赏是受苦者个人的长寿和今世的昌盛；在《启示录》中，则是新天新地中蒙救赎的人类。两者都分为三个部分：序幕、包含接连交锋的战斗，以及尾声。两者之中，那支配整个行动的不可见力量，都是上帝智慧与怜悯的旨意，而不是希腊戏剧中那幽暗、非人格的命运。³⁸⁴

若将《启示录》与犹太教和基督教的伪启示文学——《以斯拉四书》 (Fourth Book of Esdras)、《以诺书》 (Book of Enoch)、《十二族长遗训》 (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)、《巴录启示录》 (Apocalypse of Baruch)、《西比拉神谕》 (Sibylline Oracles) 等——加以比较，便会展开一个广阔的领域；我们若涉足其间，就必远远超出本书的范围。我们只能说，两者之间的关系，正如正典福音书与伪经的伪福音书之间的关系，真实历史与寓言梦境之间的关系，上帝的真理与人的虚构之间的关系。³⁸⁵

《启示录》的主题是：“我必快来。”教会对此应有的态度，是新妇渴慕新郎的圣洁向往，正如回应之言所表达的（《启示录》22:20）：“阿们！主耶稣啊，我愿你来！”它向我们保证，基督在每一重大事件中都在临到，并且治理、统御万事，使他的国度最终得胜；教会在地上的处境，是不断与敌对势力争战，但她也在不断赢得胜利，最终必彻底、完全地战胜一切仇敌，在与她的主相交之中享受说不出来的福乐。基督教诗歌从最后几章中汲取了丰富的灵感；那些歌咏圣徒天家最优美的圣诗，都是约翰描绘新耶路撒冷的回声。全书的气息振奋人心，使人在面对魔鬼和从无底坑上来的兽时，仍无所畏惧，满怀盼望。福音书在信仰中奠定根基，《使徒行传》和各书信在其上建造圣洁的生活；《启示录》则是赐给奋斗中的基督徒与争战中的教会的盼望之书，保证最终的胜利与安息。这一直是它的使命；直到主按他自己所定的美好时刻降临，这也仍将是它的使命。³⁸⁶

内容分析

《启示录》由序幕、启示正文和尾声组成。我们可以将这种布局与第四福音书相比；在后者中，《约翰福音》1:1–18构成序幕，第21章构成尾声，中间各章则包含从招聚门徒到复活的福音历史。

I. 序幕及致七教会的书信，《启示录》1–3章。开篇的说明；约翰向亚细亚 (Asia) 七教会的问安与献辞；基督在荣耀中与七教会的异象；写给她们，并借她们写给处于各种境况之下的整个教会的七封书信。³⁸⁷

启示正文，或关于未来教会的预言性异象，4:1–22:5。它主要由七个异象组成，这些异象又按一个匀称的布局细分，其中七、三、四、十二这些数字都具有象征意义。其间穿插着安息与得胜的场景。有时异象又回到起点，重新展开。

天上的序曲，《启示录》4、5章。(a) 上帝宝座的显现（《启示录》4章）。(b) 羔羊的显现，他拿取并展开那密封的书卷（《启示录》5章）。
七印的异象，第六印与第七印之间有两段插叙，6:1–8:1。
七枝报应之号的异象，8:2–11:19。
妇人（教会）及其三个仇敌的异象，12:1–13:18。这三个仇敌是龙（12:3–17）、从海中上来的兽（12:18–13:10），以及从地中上来的兽，即假先知（13:11–18）。
《启示录》14章中的一组异象：(a) 羔羊在锡安山上的异象（14:1–5）；(b) 三位宣告审判之天使的异象（14:6–11），随后是一段插叙（14:12、13）；(c) 地上庄稼与葡萄收割的异象（14:14–20）。
七碗忿怒的异象，15:1–16:21。
最终得胜的异象，17:1–22:5：(a) 巴比伦的倾倒（17:1–19:10）；(b) 撒但的覆灭（19:11–20:10），其间插入千年作王的时期（20:1–6）；(c) 普世的审判（20:11–15）；(d) 新天新地，以及天上耶路撒冷的荣耀（21:1–22:5）。

尾声，22:6–21。上帝的证实、警告与应许。

作者与正典地位

作者问题已在讨论《约翰福音》时论述过。《启示录》自称是约翰的作品，这位约翰对亚细亚众教会居于领导地位。历史上只知道一个这样的人物，就是那位使徒兼福音书作者；最早且最可信的见证人也将本书归于他，这些见证可以追溯到作者许多朋友和门徒仍然在世的时期。本书是新约中得到最充分证实的书卷之一。³⁸⁸

然而，由于本书谜一般的晦涩，它又是七卷有争议的书卷 (Antilegomena) 中争议最大的一卷；这一内在困难使人提出了“长老约翰 (Presbyter John)”为作者的假说。然而，此人是否存在本身就值得怀疑（其根据是帕皮亚 (Papias) 一段颇为含混的话）；无论如何，在伟大的约翰生前，他不可能与约翰并立，争居监督亚细亚众教会的地位。《启示录》曾成为亚历山大教父们的唯灵主义、宗教改革者（至少是路德 (Luther) 和茨温利 (Zwingli)）的现实主义，以及不少现代杰出神学家的绊脚石；然而，它又一再激起最强烈的好奇，吸引虔诚学者作最耐心的研究；而历代谦卑的基督徒，在朝向天上耶路撒冷的旅程中，也因本书英勇的气概和壮丽的结局而得到鼓舞。许多人曾以本书既非使徒所作，也不属正典而弃绝它，并将它归于一位神话般的长老约翰；如今，最严峻的批判学派却承认，它无疑是历史上的使徒约翰的作品。³⁸⁹

若是如此，单凭这一理由，本书就理当得到我们深切的崇敬。因为，除了我们主和救主的知心朋友以外，还有谁更适合记述过去的历史、预见未来的事呢？无论理性主义的还是正统派的杰出学者，都经过透彻而耐心的研究，发现或充分证实了本书诗意的优美与宏伟，以及它在布局和写作上的精湛艺术。他们诚然未能阐明本书所有的奥秘，却非但没有削弱，反而加强了它对自己向来在新约正典中所占地位的权利。

诚然，那些如此自信地维护《启示录》出于使徒之手的怀疑派批评家，正是从这一事实取得了反对第四福音书出于使徒之手的最有力武器。但他们所提出的语言与精神上的差异，绝非不能调和；而两书在神学、基督论乃至文体上更有力的相似之处，足以压倒这些差异。对约翰性格的恰当评价，使我们看出，他不仅能够，而且极其适合撰写这两部书；尤其当我们考虑到其间相隔二三十年、题材有所不同（一部是前瞻的预言，另一部是回顾的历史），以及心境有所不同：一时在神游之中（ἐν πνεύματι^*），从一个异象被带到另一个异象，记录圣灵所口授的话；一时则在完全清醒而明晰的自觉中（ἐν νοΐ^*），从容整理自己的回忆。³⁹⁰

成书时间

传统认为本书写于图密善 (Domitian) 统治末期（95或96年）；这有爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 清楚而有分量的见证为依据，又得到优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的证实，至今仍有博学之士为之辩护；³⁹¹但书内的证据却强烈支持较早的年代，即尼禄死后（68年6月9日）至耶路撒冷毁灭（70年8月10日）之间。³⁹²这同时也使我们更容易解释《启示录》的炽烈活力与约翰极其年老时所作第四福音书的宁静安详之间的差异。《启示录》构成了从符类福音书 (Synoptic Gospels) 到第四福音书的自然过渡。七教会的状况，诚然不同于几年前保罗写信给以弗所人时的状况；但使徒时期的进展极其迅速。其间相隔六七年，足以解释这些变化。《希伯来书》也暗示，其读者在63或64年间有类似的属灵衰退。宗教的大复兴之后，极容易迅速出现世俗化或冷淡的反动。

支持较早成书年代的论据如下：

耶路撒冷仍然屹立，先见奉命量度圣殿和祭坛（启11:1），但其毁灭已被预言为迫在眉睫。外邦人“要践踏（πατήσουσιν^*）圣城四十二个月”（11:2；参路21:24），而“尸首要倒在大城里的街上；这城按着灵意叫所多玛，又叫埃及，就是他们的主钉十字架之处”（启11:8）。7:4–8似乎也以十二支派仍然存在为前提。传统年代的拥护者以比喻的意义理解这些经文。但其中提到钉十字架，迫使我们想到历史上的耶路撒冷。
本书写于罗马第五位皇帝，即尼禄死后不久，当时帝国受了致命的伤（参13:3、12、14）。这是对17:10的自然解释；那里说，朱红色兽的七个头，即异教罗马的七个头，“就是七位王；五位已经倾倒了，一位还在，一位还没有来到；他来的时候，必须暂时存留。”头五位皇帝是奥古斯都 (Augustus)、提比略 (Tiberius)、卡利古拉 (Caligula)、克劳狄乌斯 (Claudius) 和尼禄；尤利乌斯家族 (gens Julia) 随尼禄而不光彩地灭亡。接着是加尔巴 (Galba)，他不过是个篡位者（时年七十三岁），统治时间很短，从68年6月至69年1月；随后又有两个篡位者，奥托 (Otho) 和维特里乌斯 (Vitellius)，直到70年，韦斯帕芗 (Vespasian) 才在两年的帝位空缺期之后恢复帝国秩序，把征服犹太人的最后工作和毁灭耶路撒冷之事留给他的儿子提图斯 (Titus)。³⁹³因此，若不将这三个叛乱者计算在内，韦斯帕芗便可视为第六个头；如此，《启示录》的成书时间就当在70年春天（或许是复活节）。13:3、12、14证实了这一点，那里说兽的致命伤已经医好了。³⁹⁴但若把篡位者算在内，加尔巴就是第六个头，《启示录》便写于68年。无论哪一种情形，都必须把尤利乌斯·凯撒 (Julius Caesar) 排除在皇帝的序列之外（与约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 的算法相反）。

有几位批评家把第七个头解释为尼禄，认为先见愚妄地期待尼禄以敌基督的身份归来。³⁹⁵他们据此理解17:11的话：“那先前有、如今没有的兽，就是第八位；他也出于那七位。”但约翰清楚地区分了兽的各头与兽本身：尼禄是各头之一，兽本身则是罗马帝国。我认为，约翰绝不可能与异教徒一样，抱有尼禄复生 (Nero redivivus) 的妄想；否则，他作为受默示先知的一切可信性就都丧失了。他或许视尼禄为敌基督的恰当预表和先驱，但这只能是比喻的意义，正如古巴比伦是异教罗马的预表一样。

较早的年代最符合《启示录》的性质和目的，也有助于从历史角度理解它。基督在其末世论讲论中，指出耶路撒冷的毁灭及此前的患难，是神权政体历史上的重大危机，也是世界受审判的预表。而社会状况也从未如此令人惊恐。法国大革命的恐怖仅限于一个国家，但耶路撒冷毁灭前六年的患难却遍及整个罗马帝国，其中有战争与叛乱、频繁而异常的大火、地震、饥荒、瘟疫，以及各样公共灾祸和说不尽的苦难。世界仿佛确已震动到最深处，行将终结；每一个基督徒必定都感到，基督的预言正在自己眼前应验。³⁹⁶

正是在人类历史这一独一无二的关头，圣约翰领受了那些奇妙的异象，看见基督教会即将经历的争战和最后的胜利：在他身后，是罗马焚烧一切的大火和尼禄逼迫中地狱般的景象；在他周围，是犹太战争与罗马帝位空缺期的恐怖；在他面前，则是耶路撒冷和犹太神权政体的覆亡。他的书确是一部产生于当时、为当时而写的书，给受逼迫的弟兄们带来唯一却完全充足的安慰：Maran atha! Maran atha!（主来！主来！）

解释

英语作者按照预言的应验是在过去、现在还是将来，把不同的解释归为三个体系。³⁹⁷

过去派 (Preterist) 体系将《启示录》应用于耶路撒冷和异教罗马的毁灭。罗马天主教中持此说的有：阿尔卡萨尔 (Alcasar，1614)、波舒哀 (Bossuet，1690)。新教中则有：胡果·格劳秀斯 (Hugo Grotius，1644)、哈蒙德 (Hammond，1653)、克莱里库斯 (Clericus，1698)、韦特施泰因 (Wetstein，1752)、阿博齐 (Abauzit)、赫尔德 (Herder)、艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、吕克 (Lücke)、布利克 (Bleek)、德韦特 (DeWette)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、勒南 (Renan)、F. D. 莫里斯 (F. D. Maurice)、塞缪尔·戴维森 (Samuel Davidson)、摩西·斯图亚特·考尔斯 (Moses Stuart Cowles)、德普雷 (Desprez) 等。有些人³⁹⁸认为本书主要指犹太神权政体的倾覆，另一些人认为主要指与罗马帝国的冲突，还有一些人则兼指二者。

但在过去派中，那些承认本书含有真实预言与恒久真理的人，与理性主义者之间，有着根本的区别。后者认为，本书是一个幻想家的梦，已被后来的事实所否定，因为耶路撒冷并未成为圣徒的居所，反而一直是一片废墟；而罗马在异教被推翻以后，却成了拉丁基督教世界的中心。这种看法的根源，在于按字面误解了耶路撒冷。

连续派（或历史派）体系 (Continuous or Historical)：《启示录》是教会历史的预言性纲要，涵盖基督教各个世纪，直至最终的完成。它论述过去、现在与将来的事；其中一些预言已经应验，一些正在应验，另一些则有待在尚不可知的未来应验。绝大多数正统新教释经家和论战家都属于此派，他们把兽、奥秘的巴比伦，以及喝醉了圣徒之血的淫妇之母，或专指、或主要指向罗马教会。但他们在年代计算和细节应用上，彼此分歧很大。持此说的有路德 (Luther)、布林格 (Bullinger)、科利亚多 (Collado)、帕雷乌斯 (Pareus)、布赖特曼 (Brightman)、米德 (Mede)、罗伯特·弗莱明 (Robert Fleming)、惠斯顿 (Whiston)、维特林加 (Vitringa)、本格尔 (Bengel)、艾萨克·牛顿 (Isaac Newton)、牛顿主教 (Bishop Newton)、费伯 (Faber)、伍德豪斯 (Woodhouse)、埃利奥特 (Elliott)、伯克斯 (Birks)、戈森 (Gaussen)、奥伯伦 (Auberlen)、亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、李 (Lee)。
未来派 (Futurist) 体系：《启示录》第4章至全书结尾的事件，都在基督第二次降临以后。这一体系通常按字面解释以色列、圣殿和各种数字（31个时期、42个月、1260天、3 1/2年）。持此说的有里贝拉 (Ribera，耶稣会士，1592)、拉昆萨 (Lacunza，另一位耶稣会士，以本·以斯拉 (Ben-Ezra) 之名撰写《论弥赛亚在荣耀与威严中的降临》 ("On the coming of Messiah in glory and majesty")，主张基督在千禧年之前降临、古锡安按字面意义复兴，以及罗马教会的教士将来背道，投向敌基督阵营)、S. R. 梅特兰 (S. R. Maitland)、德伯格 (De Burgh)、托德 (Todd)、艾萨克·威廉斯 (Isaac Williams)、W. 凯利 (W. Kelly)。

历史派解释者还有另一项重要划分，即按照他们认为《启示录》第20章所预言的千禧年属于过去还是将来，而分为后千禧年派 (Post-Millennarians) 与前千禧年派 (Pre-Millennarians)。奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 犯了根本性的错误，把千禧年的起点定在《启示录》写作之时或基督纪元开始之时（尽管先见是在全书接近结尾时才提到它）；他的看法影响极大，因此人们普遍期待，基督教会第一个千年结束之际，世界也将终结。另一些后千禧年派解释者，把千禧年的起点定在君士坦丁大帝 (Constantine the Great) 即位（311年）、基督教在罗马战胜异教之时；还有一些人（如亨斯滕贝格）则定在日耳曼各民族归信或查理大帝 (Charlemagne) 的时代。所有这些计算都已被事实驳倒。《启示录》的千禧年必定在将来，至今仍是盼望的一项内容。

对《启示录》作语法和历史的解释，正如对任何其他书卷一样，是一切正当的属灵与实际应用唯一稳固的基础。近代博学的注释家在这方面已经做了许多工作。我们必须从作者的立场，并考虑他所处的环境，来解释本书。他立足于自己的时代，为自己的时代，写下那些必要快成的事（1:1、3；22:20），而且希望同时代的人阅读并明白他所写的（1:3）。否则，他便是徒然写作，书末庄严的警告（22:18、19）也就无法理解了。在某些方面，他们比我们更能明白他；因为他们同受烈火般的逼迫，也亲眼目睹了书中所描述的可怕审判。无疑，他首先着眼于耶路撒冷和异教罗马的倾覆；这二者是当时基督教的两大仇敌。他绝不可能忽略那场巨大的冲突。

但他的异象并不局限于这些重大的事件。它甚至伸展到最遥远的未来，那时死亡和阴间都不再有，并将出现新天新地。虽然他预言这些事的应验近在眼前，却仍在撒但、兽和假先知最终被推翻以前，安排了一个千禧年，以及其间一场短暂的争战。旧约的预言和我们主关于末世的讲论，为我们提供了类似的例子，也提供了理解《启示录》的钥匙。主把耶路撒冷的毁灭与普世的审判描写得紧密相连，仿佛是一件连续发生的事。他从起初就看见末后。第一次灾变，是借用末次灾变的色彩来描绘的；而末次灾变，则显为第一次灾变在宏大而普世规模上的重演。预言性异象的方式，就是把遥远的事件拉到近处，如同一幅全景画。在上帝看来，千年如同一日。况且，每一项真实的预言，都容许其应验不断展开。历史总在重演，却从不以同样的方式重演。日光之下并无旧事；从另一种意义说，日光之下也无新事。

在对细节作历史解释时，我们必须防备武断而离奇的体系，以及数学式的计算；这些只会助长无谓的好奇心，贬低本书，并使审慎的人心生疑虑。《启示录》并不是一本教会历史与年代学的预言手册，并不以预告特定人物、日期和事件为旨。若是如此，它对最初的读者便毫无用处，对现今广大基督徒也同样毫无用处。它借助象征性的形象，为普遍造就读者，勾勒出上帝治理的一般原则，以及基督的国与其仇敌争战中的主要力量；这场争战仍在以不断变化的形式进行。这样，它就像福音书和书信中一切预言性的话语一样，向每一个时代发出警戒与鼓励。我们必须区分基督在属灵意义上的来临，与他亲自的降临，即 parousia。前者是渐进的，后者则在顷刻之间发生。这来临始于他升天之时（参《马太福音》26:64：“从今以后，你们要看见人子坐在那权能者的右边，驾着天上的云降临”），并在接连不断的审判与赐福中持续进行（因为“世界历史就是对世界的审判”）；因此，行动与安息、恐怖的场面与欢乐的场面、争战与胜利，交替出现。新郎的降临仍在未知的未来，教会的自由行动可能使其加速或延迟；但它与基督第一次降临一样确定。教会的盼望必不落空，因为这盼望立于那位被称为“阿们的、诚信真实见证者”的应许之上（《启示录》3:14）。

附注

数目666

按照《启示录》自身的说法，从历史角度理解本书，主要取决于解开第十三章的数字之谜。从第二世纪的爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 直到今日，这个谜一直考验着注释家的才智，至今仍有争议。解谜的历史，就是整卷书的解释史。因此，我在这里概述几种最重要的看法。首先作几点预备性的说明。

经文，《启示录》13:18：“在这里有智慧：凡有聪明的，可以算计兽的数目；因为这是人的数目（ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν^*），这数目是六百六十六”（χξϛʹ^*，或 ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ^*）。

这是希腊文本的正确读法（有抄本 א^*、A、B (2)、P (2)，以及俄利根 (Origen)、普里马修斯 (Primasius) 和各译本支持），为最优秀的编者所采用。爱任纽（《驳异端》 Adv. Haer. v. 30；蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 也在其第VIII版大型校勘本中全文引述）在“所有最可靠而古老的抄本中”（ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις^*）都见到这一读法，并说它“得到那些曾与约翰亲自见面之人的证实”。然而，在他当时有一个非常显著的异读，即616（χιϛʹ^*，即 ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ^*）；此读法有抄本C及“一些”抄本支持，爱任纽知道，却不赞同。在英美修订本中，这一读法列于页边注。

“一个人的数目”，可以指某一个人的数目，也可以指一个集体人格的数目，或人的数目（Menschenzahl），即按人通常的计算方法所得的数目（布利克 (Bleek) 持此说；他以《启示录》21:17的 μέτρον ἀνθρώπου^*，即“人的尺度”，以及《以赛亚书》8:1作比较）。正因为这数目可以按通常的方法计算，作者才能期待读者将它算出来。他确实使解谜很困难，却并非不可能。李博士 (Dr. Lee，第687页) 认为，即使约翰自己不知道这数目的含义，也不违背对默示的正确认识。但若如此，他又怎能要求那些比他知道得更少的读者去算计这数目呢？
数字的神秘用法（拉比的字母数值法，Ghematria，γεωμετρία^*），为巴比伦 (Babylon) 的犹太人所熟知，并从他们传给了亚细亚的希腊人。它见于卡巴拉 (Cabbala)、《西卜林神谕书》 (Sibylline Books，I. 324–331) 和《巴拿巴书信》 (Epistle of Barnabas)，在诺斯替 (Gnostic) 各派中也非常普遍（例如 Abrasax 或 Abraxas，表示非受生的父，以及三百六十五重天，与一年中的日数相应）。³⁹⁹ 这种用法源于以希伯来和希腊字母表示数字的习惯。希伯来文的 Aleph 算作1，Beth 算作2，依此类推，Yodh 算作10；但 Kaph（第十一个字母）算作20，Resh（第二十个字母）算作200，等等。希腊字母加上尖音符号（如 αʹ^*、βʹ^*），按其顺序也具有同样的数值，直到算作200的 Sigma；例外是以 ϛʹ^*（st）表示6，以 ϟʹ^*（一个已废弃的字母 Koppa，位于 π^* 与 ρ^* 之间）表示90。希伯来字母表以 Tau = 400 结束，希腊字母表则以 Omega = 800结束。表示千数时，在字母下方加一个符号，如 ͵α^* = 1,000；͵β^* = 2,000；͵ι^* = 10,000。
对《启示录》这个谜的大多数解释，都以这一事实为基础。布利克、德韦特 (DeWette)、维泽勒 (Wieseler) 等人坚持，666这个数目必须用希腊字母表来破解，因为本书是用希腊文写给希腊读者的，而且屡次用希腊字母 Alpha 和 Omega 来称呼基督，表示他是始，是终（1:8；21:6；22:13）。另一方面，埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、勒南 (Renan)，以及所有赞成尼禄假说的人，则以《启示录》浓厚的希伯来精神与色彩，以及其犹太基督徒读者对希伯来字母表的熟悉，来反驳这一论点。况且，作者也可能为求部分隐蔽，而宁愿采用希伯来字母；正如他以巴比伦代替罗马一样（参《彼得前书》5:13）。但归根结底，前一种看法自然得多。约翰是写给小亚细亚各教会的，这些教会的成员主要是从外邦人中归信、不懂希伯来文的人。若他是写给巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的基督徒，情况或许就不同了。
若我们留意贯穿整卷《启示录》的数字象征意义，666（三个六）本身必定是一个有意义的数目。值得注意的是，耶稣这个名字的数值是888（三个八）；它高于神圣数字三次并列之数（777）的程度，恰与兽的数目低于此数的程度相等。⁴⁰⁰
从海中上来、有七头十角的“兽”（《启示录》13:1–10），就是与基督教会争战的敌基督世界权势。正如《但以理书》中一样，兽是异教国家残暴本性的贴切形象。它在与教会冲突时，就是世俗或政治的敌基督；而那行奇事、迷惑拜兽之人的“假先知”（16:13；19:20；20:10），则是思想和属灵的敌基督，与前者紧密结盟，可以说是它的大祭司和主管祭祀的官员，代表那赋予世俗帝国主义以活力和支持的偶像宗教。从更广泛的应用来说，假先知可以视为一切迷惑世人的虚假教义与异端的人格化。因为正如有“许多敌基督”，也有许多假先知。不过，“敌基督”这一名称从未出现在《启示录》中，只见于约翰的书信（共五次），并在那里以复数形式出现，意指“假先知”或异端教师，否认耶稣基督是成了肉身来的（《约翰一书》4:1–3）。保罗称敌基督为“那大罪人”，即那“沉沦之子”，他“抵挡主，高抬自己，超过一切称为神的和一切受人敬拜的；甚至坐在上帝的殿里，自称是上帝”（《帖撒罗尼迦后书》2:3、4）。但保罗似乎把罗马帝国看作一种拦阻的力量，至少在一段时期内，阻止那当时已在发动的“不法的隐意”全面爆发（2:6–8）。他写下这些话，是在尼禄即位前一两年，也是在《启示录》写成以前十六年或更久。

兽必定指异教罗马，七头必定指七位皇帝。这从17:9提到妇人所坐的“七座山”，即七山之城（urbs septicollis），便可清楚看出。但有不少注释家赋予它更广的含义，将这些头理解为数目相同的世界帝国，包括基督以前《但以理书》所说的各帝国，并一直延伸到末后的时代。奥伯伦 (Auberlen)、戈森 (Ganssen)、亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)、冯·霍夫曼 (Von Hofmann)、戈代 (Godet)，以及许多英国神学家，都持此说。

对兽的神秘数目的众多解释，可以归为三类：

(a) 666这些数字，代表一个与基督及其教会为敌的历史权势或某个人的名字所包含的字母。属于这一类的解释有：拉丁人 (Latinus)、凯撒·奥古斯都 (Caesar-Augustus)、尼禄，以及其他罗马皇帝，直至戴克里先 (Diocletian)。甚至背道者尤利安 (Julian the Apostate)、盖瑟里克 (Genseric)、穆罕默德（Maometis）、路德（Martinus Lauterus）、约翰·加尔文 (Joannes Calvinus)、“敌神者贝扎” (Beza Antitheos)、路易十四 (Louis XIV.)、拿破仑·波拿巴 (Napoleon Bonaparte)、赖希施塔特公爵 (Duke of Reichstadt，号称“罗马王”)、拿破仑三世 (Napoleon III.) 等名字，也被人以一种奇特的牵强附会，在这三个六中找了出来。⁴⁰¹

(b) 这个数目是年代性的，表示兽的生命持续多久，无论兽指的是异教、伊斯兰教，还是教皇制度。

现在我们转而讨论几种主要的解释。

拉丁人 (Latinus)，或罗马帝国

拉丁人 (Lateinos，Λατεῖνος^*，而非 λατῖνος^*，Latinus)，即拉丁帝国或罗马帝国。这个词按希腊字母计算，数值为666：λ^* = 30 + α^* = 1 + τ^* = 300 + ε^* = 5 + ι^* = 10 + ν^* = 50 + ο^* = 70 + σ^* = 200 = 总计666。希腊文形式 Λατεῖνος^* 并不能成为有效的反对理由；因为 ει^* 常用来表示拉丁文的长音 i，如 Ἀντονεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Παπεῖρος Σαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖος^*。J. E. 克拉克 (J. E. Clarke) 指出，ἡ Λατινὴ βασιλεία^*，即“拉丁帝国”，所得数值同样是666。⁴⁰²

这是我们所知最古老的解释，爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 已经提到过。他是教父中第一位研究这个问题的人，又是士每拿 (Smyrna) 的坡旅甲 (Polycarp，卒于155年) 的学生；坡旅甲是约翰的挚友。因此，作为那位蒙爱门徒门下传统的见证人，他值得特别重视。他提到三种解释，都是根据希腊字母计算的，即 Εὐανθας^*（不足取）、Λατεινος^*（他认为有可能）和 Teitan，即提图斯 (Titus)（总的说来，他较倾向于这一种）；但他不作确定的判断，因为圣经并未明确宣告兽或敌基督的名字。⁴⁰³

在这三种解释中，Latinus 是唯一合理的一种，希波吕托 (Hippolytus)、贝拉明 (Bellarmin)、艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn)、布利克 (Bleek)、德韦特 (DeWette)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、李 (Lee) 等人都采用了这种解释。

Latinus 是拉丁姆 (Latium) 一位国王的名字，却不是任何罗马皇帝的名字。因此，这里必须取其泛称的意义，应用于整个异教罗马帝国。

罗马天主教的神学家到此便止步了。⁴⁰⁴但许多新教释经家又在次一层的意义上，把它应用于拉丁教会或教皇教会，指其逼迫人的精神重犯了异教罗马的罪。《启示录》13:11–17描述第二只兽从地中上来，有两角如同羊羔，说话好像龙，并在第一只兽面前施行它所有的权柄；他们认为这只兽指的是教皇制度。假先知也得到类似的应用。路德 (Luther)、维特林加 (Vitringa)、本格尔 (Bengel)、奥伯伦 (Auberlen)、亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)、埃布拉德，以及许多英国神学家，都持这种看法。

阿尔福德座堂主任牧师在他的注释中主张这种双重应用。他说：“这个名字描述了从前异教罗马帝国统治者的共同特征——‘Latini sunt qui nunc regnant’，即‘如今掌权的是拉丁人’，爱任纽语；而且，它还把后来教皇罗马帝国的特征包括在内，这一点是爱任纽所不能预见的；这个帝国藉着它的假先知，即祭司阶层的作用，得以复兴并维持。拉丁帝国、拉丁教会、拉丁基督教，历来都是通行的名称；它在民政与教会事务上使用的语言，历来都是拉丁文；它不顾公共敬拜最显明的要求，历来在全世界都用拉丁文举行公共礼仪。没有任何一个词，能像这个词一样如此完整地描述它的特征，同时又把两只兽古今的属性结合起来。我虽不敢断然说，这就是圣约翰心中所想的那个词，却深信找不到另一个词，能如此接近圆满的解答。”华兹华斯主教也对兽作同样的反教皇解释，并纵情发挥种种虔诚而牵强的想象。参见他对13:18的《注释》(Com.)，以及他论《启示录》的专著。

尼禄 (Nero)

《启示录》是基督徒对尼禄逼迫的强烈反击，尼禄在书中被描绘为无底坑中的兽，将以敌基督的身份回来。666这个数目，恰好就是这个帝王怪物的名字以希伯来字母写成时的数值，即 נֵרוֹן קִסַר^*，Neron Kaesar，计算如下：נ^* (n) = 50，ר^* (r) = 200，וֹ^* (o) = 6，ן^* (n) = 50，ק^* (k) = 100，ס^* (s) = 60，ר^* (r) = 200；合计666。亚细亚 (Asia) 的尼禄钱币上刻有铭文：Νερων Καῖσαρ^*。不过，קיסר^* = Καῖσαρ^* 中省去了 יִ^*（若有此字母，666还须加上10）；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 根据叙利亚文也省去这个字母的情况，对此作了解释（《约翰著作》Johanneische Schriften，II. 263）。这一见解又得到三世纪巴尔米拉 (Palmyra) 铭文的证实；参见勒南 (Renan)《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，第415页。

因此，必须承认这种吻合，而且无论如何，它都是极其引人注目的；因为尼禄不仅是所有逼迫基督教的皇帝中第一个，也是最邪恶的一个，极其配得被描绘为无底坑中的兽，并被视为敌基督的预表和先驱。

此外，这种解释还有一个优点，就是得出了一个人或某个特定人物的数目（Lateinos 则不然），并为616这个异读 (varians lectio) 提供了令人满意的解释；因为这个数目恰好与拉丁文形式 Nero Caesar 相符，很可能是一位拉丁文抄写者把它替换进去的，他在计算时，从 Neron 中删去了末尾的 Nun（= 50）（666减50 = 616）。

按照这种解释，罗马皇帝的次序（不包括尤利乌斯·凯撒〔Julius Caesar〕）如下：奥古斯都 (Augustus)、提比略 (Tiberius)、卡利古拉 (Caligula)、克劳狄乌斯 (Claudius)、尼禄、加尔巴 (Galba)。这样，尼禄（死于68年6月9日）是第五位，加尔巴是第六位，似乎恰好符合17:10的经文：“五位［兽的七头中的五个］已经倾倒了，一位［加尔巴］还在，一位［第七位］还没有来到；他来的时候，必须暂时存留。”由此得出的结论是，《启示录》写于加尔巴短暂的统治期间，即68年6月9日至69年1月15日之间。又根据17:11（“那先前有如今没有的兽，就是第八位；他也属于那七位，并且归于沉沦”）进一步推断，在这位先见看来，也与当时流行的传闻相符，七位皇帝之一的尼禄将以敌基督的身份回来，成为第八位，但不久便要灭亡。

这个谜题的解答貌似可信，1831至1837年间，几位德国学者几乎同时而又各自独立地发现了它，并且各自声称拥有首创之功。他们是：C. F. A. 弗里切 (C. F. A. Fritzsche)，见《神学文献总年鉴》(Annalen der gesammten Theol. Liter.)，I. 3，莱比锡 (Leipzig)，1831年；F. 贝纳里 (F. Benary)，见《思辨神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für specul. Theol.)，柏林 (Berlin)，1836年；F. 希齐希 (F. Hitzig)，见《复活节与五旬节》(Ostern und Pfingsten)，海德堡 (Heidelb.)，1837年；E. 罗伊斯 (E. Reuss)，见1837年9月的《哈雷文学总报》(Hallesche Allg. Lit.-Zeitung)；以及埃瓦尔德，他声称在1831年以前就已有这一发现，但直到1862年才发表。采用这种解释的有鲍尔 (Baur)、策勒 (Zeller)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)、豪斯拉特 (Hausrath)、克伦克尔 (Krenkel)、格布哈特 (Gebhardt)、勒南、奥贝 (Aubé)、雷维尔 (Réville)、萨巴蒂埃 (Sabatier)、萨姆·戴维森 (Sam. Davidson，I. 291)；美国释经家中则有斯图尔特 (Stuart) 和考尔斯 (Cowles)。这正是目前最流行的解释，它的拥护者认为它绝对具有定论性。

不过，正如正文中已经指出的，尼禄假说面临着严重的反对理由：

《启示录》的语言及其读者，都提示我们应当用希腊文，而不是希伯来文，来解释这个数字谜题。
这位先见明确区分了兽与七头：兽是罗马帝国的集合名称（但以理也是这样使用的），七头则是君王（βασιλεῖς^*）或皇帝。尼禄是《启示录》写作以前统治过的五个头之一。他被“杀了”（自杀），帝国陷入两年的无政府状态，直到韦斯帕芗 (Vespasian) 将它恢复，那死伤便这样医好了（《启示录》13:3）。尼禄与韦斯帕芗之间的三位皇帝（加尔巴、奥托〔Otho〕和维特利乌斯〔Vitellius〕）都是篡位者，代表着空位时期和兽的致命伤。这至少是一种更为妥当、也与实际事实相符的解释。

然而，应当注意，约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 在《犹太古史》(Ant.) XVIIII. 2, 2；6, 10中，非常明确地把尤利乌斯·凯撒列入皇帝之中，称奥古斯都为第二位、提比略为第三位、盖乌斯·卡利古拉 (Caius Caligula) 为第四位罗马皇帝。苏维托尼乌斯 (Suetonius) 的《十二凯撒传》(Lives of the Twelve Caesars) 从尤利乌斯开始，以图密善 (Domitian) 结束，其中也包括加尔巴、奥托和维特利乌斯的传记。无论如何，这个事实都削弱了尼禄假说的基础。

很难设想，在尼禄死后，还能有什么合理动机要隐瞒他那令人憎恶的名字。为此，考尔斯把尼禄算作第六位皇帝（从尤利乌斯·凯撒开始计算），并把本书的写作时间定在他施行逼迫的统治期间。但这并不能解释兽的伤，以及它“先前有而如今没有”的说法。
相信尼禄归来这种荒谬的异教传说，是一种根本性的错误，与《启示录》的崇高品格和深邃智慧全然不相容，而且会摧毁人对其预言的一切信任。倘若约翰像这些作者所主张的那样，在68年写成此书，那么他此后的寿命足够长，足以认清自己受了蒙蔽，也就会纠正这个致命的错误，或不让此书流传。
如此容易得出的解答，竟在十八个世纪中始终无人知晓，而留待德国五六位互相竞争的理性主义者运用才智才发现，这似乎令人难以置信。真理就是真理，无论来自何处，无论何时出现，都必须怀着感恩的心接受；然而，既然《启示录》是为尼禄的同时代人的益处而写，人们自然会想，这样的解答不至于完全逃过他们的眼睛。爱任纽却丝毫没有提到它。

罗马皇帝

Caesar Romae，来自 קיסר רוֹם^*。埃瓦尔德从前持此说（见他1828年出版的第一部注释）。但这样得出的数目是616，最优秀的批评家都舍弃它而取666。在后来的著作中，埃瓦尔德采用了尼禄假说（《约翰著作》Die Johanneischen Schriften, Bd. II.，1862年，第202页及下页）。

卡利古拉 (Caligula)

由 Γάιος Καῖσαρ^* 计算而来。但这样算出的也同样是616。

提图斯 (Titus)

希腊文是 Τεῖταν^*。爱任纽认为这是最有可能的解释，因为这个词由六个字母组成，而且属于一位王者暴君。如果省去末尾的 ν^* (n)，便得到另一种异读（616）。反对的理由是：毁灭耶路撒冷的提图斯是最好的皇帝之一，并不是逼迫基督徒的人。

韦斯帕芗、提图斯与图密善

韦特施泰因 (Wetstein) 认为这些字母指的是提图斯·弗拉维乌斯·韦斯帕芗 (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) 父子三人（两子即提图斯和图密善）。他认为约翰使用过这两个数目，在本书第一版中用616，第二版中用666。他在注释中说：“Eleganter et apposite Joannes Titum Flavium Vespasianum patrem et filios hoc nomine designat ... Convenit secundo nomen Τειτάν^* praenomini ipsorum Titus. Res ipsa etiam convenit. Titanes fuerunt θεομάχοι^*, tales etiam Vespasiani.” 即：“约翰以这个名字指称提图斯·弗拉维乌斯·韦斯帕芗父子，既巧妙又贴切……其次，这个名字与他们的个人名字提图斯相合。事实本身也相合：提坦诸神是与神争战者，韦斯帕芗父子也是如此。”《新约》(Nov. Test.)，II.，第806页；比较他在第805页的校勘注。

戴克里先 (Diocletian)

戴克里先皇帝的名字用罗马字母写作 Diocles Augustus，只计算其中某些字母，即：DIo CLes aVg Vst Vs。⁴⁰⁵戴克里先是最后一位施行逼迫的皇帝（卒于313年）。这是博叙埃 (Bossuet) 的解释。胡格诺派 (Huguenots) 针对他这个毫无价值的猜测，提出那位“大君主”、逼迫新教徒的路易十四 (Louis XIV.) 的名字，也能得出同样的结果（LVDo VICVs）。

从奥古斯都到韦斯帕芗的罗马皇帝

梅尔克尔 (Märcker) 在1868年的《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken) 第699页指出，从屋大维 (Octavianus，即奥古斯都) 到提图斯的前十位罗马皇帝，包括加尔巴、奥托和维特利乌斯这三位篡位者，其名字的首字母可得出666的数值。迪斯特迪克（第467页）称之为“eine frappante Spielerei”，即“一种令人惊奇的文字游戏”。

凯撒奥古斯都 (Caesar Augustus)

Kaisarsebaston（以此词尾代替 ς^*，以配合中性的 θηρίον^*），即“凯撒奥古斯都的”兽。⁴⁰⁶罗马皇帝的正式称号是 Καίσαρ Σεβαστός^*（Caesar Augustus），他们那亵渎性的自我神化，在这一称号中达到了顶点。作为这种解释的支持，可以引证《启示录》13:1所说“兽的头上有亵渎的名号”。

这是维瑟勒博士 (Dr. Wieseler) 在其《新约文献与原始基督教史论》(Zur Geschichte der Neutest. Schrift und des Urchristenthums)，1880年，第169页所提出的推测。这确实颇具巧思，而且比尼禄假说更符合《启示录》的性质。它实质上与 Lateinos 的解释一致。但以词尾的 ν^* 代替 ς^*，仍是一个可反对之处，尽管这并不比从 קיסר^* 中省去 yodh 更为严重。这

年代性的解释——敌基督存续的时期

666这个数目表示兽，即敌基督的世界权势，以及与兽联合的假先知存续的时期。

异教存续的时期。但逼迫教会的异教罗马，在君士坦丁 (Constantine) 于公元311年归信之后，已经基督教化。异教的其他形式及其后来的历史，都在《启示录》异象的范围之外。
穆罕默德教 (Mohammedanism)。教皇英诺森三世 (Innocent III.) 在号召西欧发动一次新的十字军东征时，宣称撒拉森人 (Saracens) 就是兽，穆罕默德 (Mohammed) 就是假先知，其权势将存续六百六十六年。参见他于1213年颁布、召集第四次拉特兰会议 (Lateran Council) 的诏书，载于阿尔杜安 (Hardouin)，《会议集》(Conc.)，第VII卷，3。但自希吉拉 (Hegira，即迁徙，622年) 以来，甚至自第四次拉特兰会议（1215年）以来，都已过了六百六十六年；然而伊斯兰教 (Islam) 仍在君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 高踞宝座，统治着一亿六千万人的良心。

(3). 敌基督的教皇制度。这种解释由中世纪敌视罗马的宗派提出，后由十六、十七世纪正统的新教神学家加以发展而臻于成熟；当时，那些由教皇直接煽动或认可的可怕逼迫，仍在人们心中留下鲜明印象，其残酷程度和波及范围都超过了异教罗马的逼迫。据称，仅那可怕的阿尔瓦公爵 (Duke of Alva) 一人，在短短几年内于尼德兰 (Netherlands) 处死的新教徒，就多于从尼禄到戴克里先 (Diocletian) 所有异教皇帝处死的新教信徒；西班牙宗教裁判所的受害者（在托尔克马达〔Torquemada〕主持的十八年间，有105,000人），也超过了古代殉道者的人数。那奥秘的巴比伦、众淫妇之母，那骑在兽上、喝醉了圣徒的血和耶稣殉道者之血的妇人（《启示录》17:5及下文），不是别的，正是伪基督教而又敌基督的罗马教会——这几乎成了新教的一条信条；这一观点至今仍广为流行，尤其是在大不列颠和北美。

路德 (Luther) 为这种反教皇的释经定下了基调。他起初对《启示录》的评价很低，不肯承认它出于使徒，也不肯承认它是先知性的著作（1522年），但后来却将它用于论战（在他1530年版《新约》的序言中）。他与奥古斯丁一样，把那一千年（《启示录》20:7）从本书写成之时算起，又把六百六十六年从被视为教皇制度创始者的贵格利七世 (Gregory VII.) 算起，并将歌革 (Gog) 和玛各 (Magog) 理解为那些不可名状的土耳其人和犹太人。贵格利七世于1073年当选教皇，因此敌基督的时代理应在公元1739年结束；但那一年过去了，教皇制度的历史却没有发生任何变化。

继路德之后的，有基特雷乌斯 (Chytraeus，1563年)、塞尔内克 (Selnecker，1567年)、赫厄·冯·霍内格 (Hoe v. Honegg，1610及1640年)，以及其他路德宗注释家。加尔文 (Calvin) 和贝扎 (Beza) 明智地没有涉足预言的解释；但其他改革宗神学家却以丰富的学识，详尽阐发了这种反教皇的解释体系，如比布利安德 (Bibliander，1549及1559年)、布林格 (Bullinger，1557年)、大卫·帕雷乌斯 (David Pareus，1618年)、约瑟夫·米德 (Joseph Mede，他在1627年的《启示录之钥》〔Clavis Apocalyptica〕中创立了巧妙的同时对应体系)、科克塞尤斯 (Coccejus，1696年)、维特林加 (Vitringa，一位极其博学而有益的注释家，1705年，1721年第3版)，以及约翰·阿尔布雷希特·本格尔 (Joh. Albrecht Bengel，见其《指要》〔Gnomon〕、《年代次序》〔Ordo Temporum〕，1741年，尤其是《约翰启示录释义》〔Erklärte Offenbarung Johannis〕，1740年，1834年新版)。这位真正伟大而良善的人，精心构建了一套博学的年代解释体系，将敌基督（教皇）统治的终结定在1836年；在符腾堡 (Würtemburg)，许多敬慕他的虔诚人士，在那一年都热切焦虑地等候千禧年的到来。但那一年过去了，并未发生任何重大变化；按照本格尔自己正确的预言，这次落空表明他的体系存在严重错误。后来的作者又一再预言教皇制度的覆亡和千禧年的开始，随着时间推移，不断将日期后移；然而1848年和1870年都已过去，教皇仍然活着，老而弥健，并且又增添了无谬性的尊荣——这种尊荣是教父们从未听说过的，甚至圣彼得也从未声称拥有，而圣保罗在安提阿 (Antioch) 则曾有力地驳斥过。所有关于主再来的数学推算，都注定要落空；那些想知道得比我们可称颂的主在肉身的日子所知道的更多的人，理当失望。“父凭着自己的权柄所定的时候、日期，不是你们可以知道的”（《使徒行传》1:7）。这就解决了这个问题。

奥秘性和象征性的解释

这个数目既不是字母数值，也不是年代，而是那尚未来临的敌基督的奥秘性或象征性的名字。在这里，我们又遇到了不同的看法。

非洲的《启示录》注释家普里马修斯 (Primasius，奥古斯丁的学生)，提到两个名字，用来表明敌基督的一般特征：Ἀντεμος^* 和 ἀρνουμε^*；前者意为 honori contrarius（与尊荣相反），后者来自 ἀρνέομαι^*，即否认，用它来描写敌基督颇为恰当，“utpote per duas partes orationis, nominis scilicet et verbi, et personae qualitas et operis insinuatur asperitas”（“因为借着名词和动词这两个词类，既表明了此人的品性，也暗示了其行为的凶暴”）。全无价值。参见吕克 (Lücke)，第997页。屈利希 (Züllig) 在这个数目中找出了巴兰 (Bileam) 的名字。亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg) 的解释也好不了多少：亚多尼干 (Adonikam)，即“主兴起”——这倒真是敌基督的好名字（《帖撒罗尼迦后书》2:4）！他的根据是《以斯拉记》2:13：“亚多尼干的子孙六百六十六名。”以斯拉列举的是在所罗巴伯带领下从被掳之地归回的以色列子孙。这与敌基督有什么关系，实在难以看出。

冯·霍夫曼 (Von Hofmann) 和菲勒 (Füller) 认为，这个数目暗指敌基督个人的名字。

另一种看法是：这个数目与《启示录》中所有其他数目一样，具有象征意义，表示从异教罗马直到末日，以各种形态相继出现的敌基督的世界权势。因此，它可以有许多种应用，正如有“好些敌基督”一样。六是人类工作和劳苦的数目（一周中的六日），正如七是上帝安息的数目。或者说，六是十二——教会的数目——的一半，表示世俗权势分裂的状态。三个六表示世俗性（世俗的荣耀、世俗的智慧、世俗的文明）达到权势的顶峰；然而，尽管它夸耀自己的力量，终究不过是软弱和愚昧，达不到七和十二所象征的神圣完全。赫尔德 (Herder)、奥伯伦 (Auberlen)、勒施 (Rösch)、亨斯滕贝格、布格尔 (Burger)、莫里斯 (Maurice)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、沃恩 (Vaughan)、卡彭特 (Carpenter) 等人，都曾提出这种或类似的观点。

撒但的弥赛亚

纳沙泰尔 (Neuchatel) 的戈代教授 (Professor Godet) 近来提出的观点，属于奥秘性解释一类，值得特别一提。这位杰出的注释家将666看作撒但的弥赛亚的象征性名字，与上帝的弥赛亚相对立。这个数目原来是用三个字母 χξϛʹ^* 表示的。首尾两个字母是基督之名的缩写，数值为606（χ^* = 600 + ϛ^* = 6）；中间的 ξ^*，由于其形状及嘶嘶的发音，是撒但的象征，作为数字则具有60的数值。《启示录》称撒但为古蛇，是暗指受试探的历史（《创世记》3章）。这个解释最初由霍伊曼 (Heumann) 和赫尔德提出；戈代以此为基础，提出了一个独创的理论，即敌基督或那大罪人将是一个犹太人，他将建立一个属肉体的以色列，与真正的弥赛亚相抗衡，并敬拜这世界的王，以取得普世的统治权。⁴⁰⁷ Corruptio optimi pessima.（至善者的败坏最为恶劣。）勒南说：“没有什么能比得上犹太人的邪恶；但与此同时，最优秀的人也曾是犹太人；对于这个种族，无论你愿意说什么好话或坏话，都不必担心超出事实。”在亵渎上，犹太人与在崇拜上一样，都居于人类之首。唯有背道者才能全心全意地亵渎。在辱骂基督及其教会这件事上，我们外邦人中的伏尔泰 (Voltaire) 们，与犹太人相比，不过是羔羊。唯有以色列才能生出犹大，唯有背道的以色列才能生出敌基督。以色列恰好符合《启示录》中那兽的描述：它先前有，如今没有，将来还要有（《启示录》17:11）；它曾受了死伤，却将奇迹般地得医治，以便作为第八个头，扮演敌基督的角色。戈代指出，犹太人在财富、政治和文学方面日益增长的势力，尤其是他们对基督教国家中反基督教报刊的控制，都表明这一预言的应验正在临近。

戈代坚持《启示录》写于图密善时期的较晚年代说，拒绝将兽的七个头解释为罗马皇帝。他像奥伯伦、亨斯滕贝格等人一样，将它们解释为基督降生前后的七个帝国；但他又加入了一个新特点，即将臣属于罗马权势的希律王朝 (Herodian dynasty) 包括在内。

按照他的看法，第一个头是企图将以色列扼杀在摇篮中的古埃及；第二个是亚述—巴比伦帝国 (Assyro-Babylonian empire)，它先毁灭十支派的王国，继而毁灭耶路撒冷；第三个是波斯帝国 (Persian empire)，它将复兴的以色列置于自己的权下；第四个是安条克·伊皮法尼 (Antiochus Epiphanes) 统治下的希腊王国（即《但以理书》8章的小角、旧约的敌基督），他企图压制以色列对上帝的敬拜，代之以对宙斯 (Zeus) 的敬拜；第五个是希律诸王统治，以及亚那和该亚法担任大祭司期间的犹太国家，他们将救主钉在十字架上，随后又企图毁灭他的教会；第六个是罗马帝国，据认为，它包括欧洲直到今日的一切政治权势；第七个头是一个为时短暂的权势，它将摧毁欧洲的整个政治体系，为敌基督从不信的犹太教怀中出现预备道路。戈代以这种方式，使《启示录》与保罗关于罗马帝国拦阻作用的教导相协调；罗马帝国将被推翻，好给敌基督的全面统治让路。第八个头是复兴的以色列，由一位属肉体的弥赛亚领导；他将宣扬对人类的敬拜，推翻犹太人的宿敌罗马（《启示录》18章），但自己又将被基督推翻（《启示录》19章；《帖撒罗尼迦后书》2:8）。此后便是千禧年，是人类在地上度过漫长劳作的一周之后的安息日；这不一定是基督有形的统治，却是借着他的灵施行的统治。到了这一时期的末了，那时还只是被捆绑的撒但，将再次企图毁灭上帝的工作，却只能为自己的最终失败预备道路，并发出普世审判的信号（《启示录》20章）。创世之日所建立的地上秩序，此时便让位于新天新地（《启示录》21章），在那里，上帝将成为万有中的万有。约翰预见这令人赞叹的景象，就俯伏下来，邀请所有信徒与圣灵和新妇一同呼喊：“主啊，来吧——快来吧”（《启示录》22章）。这是何等宏大的戏剧！对于以《创世记》开篇的圣经，这是何等壮丽的结局！第一次创造使人自由；第二次创造将使人圣洁，那时上帝的工作就完成了。

结论

这是一个极其巧妙的解释，其中包含许多可贵的真理，但还不是关于这卷奥秘之书的定论，而它对数字之谜的解答也十分可疑。如前所述，兽的首要含义是异教的罗马，其代表就是那个暴虐而逼迫人的怪物尼禄 (Nero)，他正是撒但邪恶的化身。最古老的解释，即“拉丁人” (Lateinos)，早已为圣约翰的再传弟子所知，也是最好的解释；而其他按字母数值算得666的解释，即尼禄 (Nero) 与凯撒·奥古斯都 (Caesar Augustus)，同样指向那个对基督教发动了三百年血腥征伐的罗马权势，因此这一解释就更加可信。然而，政治之兽及其思想上的盟友——假先知，在历史上一再出现，无论在古罗马帝国的疆域以内还是以外，都与教会和基督的真理争战。在《启示录》的奥秘得以解明以前，释经才智与历史学识还将创造更多奇观——倘若这些奥秘在最终应验以前果真能够解明的话。与此同时，这卷书将继续履行其实际使命，安慰并鼓励每一位为生命冠冕而进行信心争战的基督徒。

§ 102. 结束的思考：信仰与批判

信仰与批判之间并无必然的冲突，正如启示与理性、信仰与哲学之间并无必然的冲突一样。二者都出于上帝，而他不能自相矛盾。有不加批判的信仰，也有毫无信仰的批判，正如有真正的哲学，也有冒称哲学的东西；但这并不能成为反对信仰或批判的理由，因为最美好的恩赐也可能遭到滥用和歪曲，最高贵的艺术作品也可能被丑化为漫画。那位宣讲信心的使徒指示我们：“凡事察验”，“善美的要持守”。我们信，为要明白；真正的信仰是知识之母。凡以理性相信基督教是上帝赐给人类最好且最终的宗教，就理当检验其信仰所立的根基；它也受到一种不可抗拒的推动，要维护真理，抵挡一切形式的谬误。基督教无须辩白。它深知自己有超自然的力量，能够勇敢地迎战每一个仇敌，并使之成为盟友。

回顾使徒时期的历史，它在我们眼前仿佛是一片辽阔的战场，各种相反的倾向和学派在此交锋。每一寸土地都受到争夺，必须重新征服；每一个事实，以及启示的每一项教义，都受到质疑；每一种假说都被尝试；学识、敏锐和才智的一切资源，都被调集起来，进攻基督教信仰的堡垒。这堡垒固然坚不可摧，胜利也确有把握，但那些出于无知或傲慢而低估围城大军实力的人，却不能得胜。在十六世纪，争战发生在罗马天主教与福音派新教之间；在十九世纪，问题则是基督教还是不信。当时，双方都相信新约的默示，对正典的范围也无异议，所不同的只是解释；如今，默示受到否认，除四五卷以外，其余各卷的使徒来源都遭到攻击。当时，上帝的话语，无论是否附以传统，都是宗教争论的最终裁判；如今，人的理性成了最高法庭。

我们生活在一个发现、发明、研究与怀疑的时代。在思想界，怀疑主义几乎无所不在，弥漫于整个空气之中。我们不能无视它，正如古代教父不能无视他们时代的诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 思辨一样。没有什么被视为理所当然；没有什么仅凭权威就被相信；凡事都必须有充分的证据支持，都必须说明其从种子到果实的自然生长过程。罗马天主教徒相信梵蒂冈 (Vatican) 有一个无误的神谕；但无论这神谕颁下什么谕令，地球仍在运行，而且将继续围绕太阳运行。新教徒既已安然渡过红海，就不能再回到为奴之地的肉锅旁，而必须向应许之地前进。谚语说，黑夜里牛都是黑的，日光却显出它们不同的颜色。

基督为什么没有亲自写下新约，像穆罕默德 (Mohammed) 写下《古兰经》 (Koran) 那样呢？写作并不有损他的尊严；他确曾在沙地上写过一次，虽然我们不知道写的是什么。上帝亲自将十诫写在两块石版上。但摩西看见西奈山的雷声还未从以色列人的耳边消逝，他们就已经敬拜金牛犊，便把石版摔得粉碎。他们原可能把那些石版变成偶像。上帝将那位伟大的立法者埋葬，使他不在人眼前，也使偶像崇拜无从触及。福音比律法更不是要成为一个哑巴偶像。它不是叫人死的字句，而是叫人活的灵。叫人活着的乃是灵，肉体是无益的；基督的话“就是灵，就是生命”。即使有一卷由他那无误的手亲自写成的书，若没有持续不断的神迹保护，在会犯错的抄写者和印刷者手中，也会像门徒所写的书一样，遭受同样的改动和讹误，而亲笔原稿也会随着脆弱的蒲草纸一同消亡。它也不能逃脱怀疑和不信的批评者无情的攻击，以及注释家和传道人的曲解。他亲自来拯救自己的百姓，却被这百姓的宗教统治集团钉在十字架上。他的书又能指望有什么更好的命运呢？当然，尽管不信之人有种种怀疑、臆测和谎言，它仍会从死里复活；但使徒的著作也是如此，尽管成千上万的抄本已被异教徒和假基督徒焚毁。多马固然可以把手探入复活之主的伤痕；然而，“那没有看见就信的有福了”。

我们必须相信圣灵；他在教会中生活、运行，是书写和印刷的话语背后那看不见的能力。

基督教的真实记录以带有异文和难题的形式流传给我们，这不断激励人们学习和研究，并使人的一切智力与道德能力得到运用。每个人都必须忠实地利用自己所拥有的机会和特权，竭力求得对真理最好的理解；而这些机会与特权正随着世代的更迭不断增多。

新约是向信心启示属灵和永恒真理的书；信心虽然植根于人最深切的需要与渴望，却是圣灵的工作。它必须在不信的世界中奋战前行，而胜利越近，争战就越发激烈。在过去半个世纪中，使徒的著作一直在经历一本书所能承受的最灼热批判的炼狱。这种反对本身，正是它们生命力与重要性的有力见证。

怀疑有两种：一种以多马为代表，诚实、认真，寻求真理，最终也找到了真理；另一种以撒都该人 (Sadducees) 和本丢·彼拉多 (Pontius Pilate) 为代表，肤浅、世俗、轻浮，对真理漠不关心，最终陷于绝望。对于后者，“连诸神与之说理也是徒然”。它若肯费心攻击圣经，所用的也不过是讥讽和嘲笑，根本无法认真作答。不信的根源，与其说在理性和智力，不如说在内心和意志；而蓄意抵挡真理的人，对任何论证都充耳不闻。但诚实而爱真理的怀疑，总是值得尊重与同情，并要求我们耐心考察基督教起源问题中那些真实或想象的难题。它对教会的益处，可能胜过不加思索、不讲理据的正统。本世纪最有才干、品格最纯正的怀疑派批评家之一德韦特 (DeWette)，曾作出以下令人悲伤却又可敬的自白：

“我活在怀疑争斗的时代，

赤子般的信仰被迫退让；

我奋战直至生命的终点，

唉！我未能赢得这战场。”

然而，到最后，他终究赢得了这场争战；因为在去世前几个月，他写下并发表了以下意味深长的话：“我知道，除了被钉十字架的耶稣基督之名以外，别无拯救；对于人类，没有什么比在他里面实现的神人性 (Gottmenschheit)，以及由他建立的上帝之国更高。”寻求真理的人有福了，因为他们必寻见。

本世纪在路德 (Luther) 的故土诞生并成熟、继而传播到瑞士、法国、荷兰、英格兰、苏格兰和美国的批判与历史理性主义 (rationalism)，无论在学识的深广，还是在精神的认真上，都超过了以往一切形式的不信与异端。它不像十八世纪的理性主义那样肤浅轻浮；它并非对真理漠不关心，而是极其热切地要查明真实的事实，并追溯基督教这一伟大历史现象的起源与发展。但它傲慢地自称为最卓越的 (par excellence) 批判，正如古代教会中的诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 自命独占知识一样。有合乎历史、保守而建设性的批判，也有违背历史、激进而破坏性的批判；前者必将赢得这场争战，正如上帝的真理必比一切谬误更长存一样确定。同样，有信而属基督教的诺斯替主义，也有不信而反基督教（或伪基督教）的诺斯替主义。

当代的否定性批判，将力量集中于基督的生平和使徒时期，并以惊人的耐心，对这段历史最细微的详情作了大量研究。它的劳作并非徒然；恰恰相反，它既造成许多损害，也带来了极大的益处。它的长处在于考察圣经的人性与文学层面，短处则在于忽略圣经的神圣与属灵性质。因此，它恰与旧有的正统形成两极；后者过度强调默示理论，以致把人的作用降低为笔的机械运作。我们必须兼顾这两个方面。圣经是上帝的话，也是古时圣洁之人的话。它既启示上帝，也揭示人。它揭示人发展的各个阶段——无罪、堕落、蒙赎——以及从属天的纯洁到撒但般邪恶的种种品格，呈现人的一切美德与恶习、一切经历的状态；对于诗人、艺术家、历史家和神学家，它是永不枯竭的灵感泉源。它反映并使道成肉身的奥秘长存。它是那位宣称自己既是人子、又是上帝之子的主的话。“人被圣灵感动，说出从上帝而来的话。”在这里，一切都是神圣的，一切也都是属人的。

无疑，新约是各种力量逐渐生长并相互冲突的结果；这些力量原已包含在基督教最初的观念之中，随着基督教从基督传到门徒，从犹太人传到外邦人，从耶路撒冷传到安提阿 (Antioch) 和罗马，并在主要使徒的思想中臻于成熟，便逐一显明出来。无疑，福音书和书信是由特定的人，在特定的时间、特定的地点、特定的环境下，为特定的目的而写成的；这一切问题都是正当的探究对象，极其值得不断重新研究。许多晦暗之处已经得到澄清，这部分应归功于这些批评家本身；他们本想拆毁，却帮助了建造。

使徒时期的著述史，正如其宣教事业的进展一样，都受上帝特殊护理的引导。基督在世时只完成了他工作的一部分。他向门徒指出，在他复活以后，他们要奉他的名、靠他的能力，成就更大的工作。他应许永远与他们同在，并赐下圣灵；圣灵作为另一位保惠师，要引导他们进入一切真理，使他们明白他所说的一切话。《使徒行传》是一部圣灵的历史，或说是基督复活以后在地上建立其国度的工作史。使徒和传福音的人被这圣灵充满，走入一个充满敌意的世界，借着他们活泼的口传之道，使这世界归向基督；如今，他们仍借着所写下的话语，继续这征服的进程。

不信的批判只看见历史上这场最伟大运动的外在表面，却看不见从内部运行的属灵力量，或拒绝承认这些力量确实出于上帝。同样，当代唯物主义和无神论的科学家，设想自然界有法则而无法则的制定者，有受造物而无创造者；他们止步于结果，却不上溯到原因，而唯有原因才能为结果提供合理的解释。

在这里，我们触及一切形式的理性主义最深的根源，也触及将它与超自然主义 (supernaturalism) 截然分开的鸿沟。这根源就是对超自然与神迹的反对。它否认自然中的上帝和历史中的上帝，而推到最终结论，它便否认上帝本身的存在。自然神论 (Deism) 和无神论都不给神迹留下余地；但若相信有一位全能的创造主，创造一切有形无形之物，是自然界和历史上一切现象的终极而全足的原因，就意味着神迹在任何时候都有可能发生；这诚然不是违反他自己的法则，而是在事物的常规秩序之上、超乎其外（而非与之相反），彰显他制定法则和施行创造的能力。因此，任何特定事例中神迹的真实性，便成为历史考察的问题。不能出于先验的 (à priori) 哲学偏见，简单地加以否认，就算了结；必须公正地考察，若有充分的内证和外证支持，就必须承认。

基督的神迹不能与他的位格和教训分开。他的话语与他的作为同样奇妙；两者构成和谐的整体，要么一同成立，要么一同倾覆。他的位格就是那伟大的神迹，而他的神迹不过是他自然而然的作为。他超越其他人，正如他的话语和作为超越寻常的言行。他绝对无罪，因此与一切凡人迥然有别。他自己宣称具有超乎人的来源和超自然的能力；否认这些，就是把他说成说谎者和骗子。一切值得尊重的理性主义者，都承认、甚至强调他人性的完美；然而，既坚持这一点，又拒绝他对自己的见证，是不可能的。施特劳斯 (Strauss) 和勒南 (Renan) 笔下的基督，是一切人物中最自相矛盾的，是一切谜团中最不可置信的。把基督仅仅看作人的观念，无论把他提升到存在者序列中何等崇高的地位，都不可能在学理上与另一种信仰调和：即相信基督是上帝之子，是基督教世界从起初直到如今一直敬拜的世界之主和救主。

我们也不能从使徒教会中剔除超自然的因素，而不毁掉它本身的生命，使它化为一个巨大的幻象。若否认保罗的归信，保罗又将成为什么？若没有复活和升天，我们又怎能解释他的归信？近代最伟大的怀疑论者，也曾在这个问题面前踌躇不前，觉得自己几乎不得不承认一个真实的神迹，作为这一归信唯一合理的解释。圣灵是使徒时期感发人心、推动前进的力量，使加利利 (Galilee) 的渔夫成为得人的渔夫。

一个在心中经历过福音大能的基督徒，对于超自然的事不会有什么困难。他确信上帝之灵使人重生归信的作用，以及基督施行拯救的功效，正如确信自己肉身的存在一样。他已尝过这药，并得了医治。他可以同那生来瞎眼、后来得见的人一起说：“有一件事我知道：从前我是眼瞎的，如今能看见了。”这是一个简短的信条，却比任何论证更有力量。亲身经历的堡垒是攻不破的；确凿事实的逻辑，比理性的逻辑更具说服力。每一次从罪恶转向圣洁的真实归信，都是心灵上的神迹，与大数的扫罗 (Saul of Tarsus) 的归信同样如此。

对超自然之事或隐或显的敌意，是不信者批判的动力之源。我们尽可坦然承认，关于福音书和书信写作时间、地点以及其他次要细节的某些难题，尚未得到、也许永远不能得到令人满意的解决；然而，它们所得的内证和外证，远胜于希腊、罗马伟大古典作家的任何著作，也远胜于斐罗 (Philo) 和约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 的著作，而学者们对那些著作却都毫无疑问地接受，这仍是事实。早在第二世纪中叶，即使徒约翰去世五十年后，当时他的许多亲传学生和朋友想必尚在人世，四部正典福音书，不多也不少，就已在叙利亚 (Syria)、小亚细亚 (Asia Minor)、埃及、意大利和高卢 (Gaul) 的众教会中，被承认为圣书，并在公共崇拜中宣读；面对犹太人和异教徒的敌意，以及异端的曲解，它们仍得到如此普遍的接纳与权威，只有认定它们早已为人所知、为人所用，才能解释。其中有些，即《马太福音》和《约翰福音》，在第二世纪最初的二十五年中，就已被正统派和诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 作者引用和使用。每一项新发现，如《伪克莱门讲道集》 (Clementine Homilies) 的最后一卷、希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 的《哲学论》 (Philosophumena)、他提安 (Tatian) 的《四福音合参》 (Diatessaron)，以及对殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 的《福音回忆录》 (Gospel Memoirs)、对马吉安 (Marcion) 的《福音书》 (Gospel) 与《路加福音》之关系所作的每一次深入研究，都加强了合乎历史的保守批判的事业，使破坏性的批判遭受鲜血淋漓的创伤。若第一世纪末和第二世纪初的引文十分稀少，我们必须记得，那个时期留给我们的文献仅有寥寥数种；第二代基督徒也不是一群学者、文士和批评家，而是卑微、不识文字的认信者和殉道者，他们仍沐浴在活生生的教导，以及对使徒和传福音者的亲身回忆所带来的清新空气之中。

但对观福音书 (Synoptical Gospels) 本身带有极强的内在标记，表明它们写于耶路撒冷被毁（公元70年）以前；其中基督预言耶路撒冷的毁灭，将之视为未来的事件，以及世界审判迅速临近的征兆，其叙述方式只有与这样早的写作年代才相吻合。《希伯来书》同样写于圣殿尚存、每日仍献祭的时候。不过，既然并非所有人都承认这一早期年代，我们便暂且不论这封书信。鲍尔 (Baur)、勒南及其他人，十分肯定地把约翰的《启示录》定于公元68或69年，却把福音书的写作年代推到晚得多的时候。他们也承认，那几封反对犹太主义的重要书信——《加拉太书》《罗马书》和《哥林多前后书》——出于保罗；他们正是以这些书信为基础，凭借夸大或纯属想象的差异，攻击保罗较短的书信和《使徒行传》。保罗的这些书信写于耶路撒冷被毁之前十二或十四年。这便把我们带到距离基督复活与教会诞生不到三十年的时候。

现在，即使我们只限于这五卷书，就是最苛求、最严厉的批判也承认出于使徒的四封保罗书信和《启示录》，单凭这些，也足以确立以历史为根据的信仰之基础；因为它们虽未援引成文的福音书，却以直接陈述或间接提及的方式，证实了福音历史中每一项重要的事实和教义。作者保罗和约翰的记忆与亲身经历，可以追溯到大马士革 (Damascus) 的异象，复活与钉十字架的场景，以及门徒在约旦河畔和加利利湖边最初蒙召的时候。批判必须先以推论将保罗和约翰从历史中抹去，或否认他们曾写过一行文字，然后才有望使明理的人放弃福音书中的任何一章。

外证固然有力，使徒著作真实可信的内证却更为有力，直到今日，无学问的人与学者都能感受到。它们在文体和精神上，与使徒以后的一切作品大不相同；即使在最优秀的书籍中，也卓然独立。十八个世纪以来，它们在地球上最文明的各民族中，一直占据着这个地位；它们也不大可能从这个地位上被推翻。

我们解释人物和事件，不仅必须依据其本身，也必须借助后世历史的光照。“凭着他们的果子，就可以认出他们来。”基督教比任何其他宗教，也比任何哲学体系，都更能经受这一检验。

当我们立足于使徒时期的终点，回望它的源头，又前瞻继起的世代时，不能不惊叹拿撒勒人耶稣短暂的公开事工所产生的巨大果效；它如同一条奔流不息、不断扩展的生命之河，将福泽传遍历世历代。人类史册中绝无任何事物可与之相比。基督降生时，罗马帝国统辖着一亿多人口，都是凭武力征服的；这个帝国逼迫他的宗教三百年之后，终于消逝，再无复起的可能。如今基督教会已有四亿人，都是被基督的爱所征服的，而且人数还在不断增加。第一世纪是历史的生命与光，是时代的转折点。如果上帝曾向人启示自己，如果天国曾显现于人间，那就是在拿撒勒人耶稣的位格与工作之中。毫无疑问，甚至怀疑者和不信者也不得不承认，他是智者中最有智慧的、纯洁者中最纯洁的、强者中最有能力的。他的十字架已成为万国的生命树；他的教训至今仍是宗教真理的最高标准；他的榜样仍是无可超越的圣洁典范；他那些加利利门徒所写的福音书和书信，至今仍是万书之书，其力量超过人类智慧与天才所产生的一切经典。从没有一本书吸引过如此广泛的注意，激起过如此强烈的反对，历经如此众多的逼迫而不衰，唤起过如此深厚的敬畏与感恩，激发过如此众多的高尚思想与行为，并从摇篮到坟墓，为各阶层、各境遇的人带来如此丰富的安慰与平安。它不只是一本书；它还是一种制度，一股渗透一切、无处不在的力量，一种使人归信、成圣、更新的媒介；它从讲坛和讲席施行治理，主持家庭祭坛上的敬拜；它是每个家庭的神圣约柜，是每个基督徒诉诸文字的良心，是人生旅途中白昼的云柱、黑夜的光柱。有了它，人类尚且如此败坏，人生尚且如此黑暗；若没有它，又将败坏到何等地步，黑暗到何等地步呢？基督教可以没有《新约》的文字而继续存在，却不能没有其中所记载、所教导的事实与真理。倘若有可能把这些从世界上驱逐出去，我们文明的太阳就会熄灭，人类便会陷入午夜的黑暗，眼前只剩下无梦而无尽的涅槃 (Nirvana) 这一凄凉的前景。

然而，无论地上还是地狱中的任何权势，都不能熄灭这太阳。它照耀在天际，是白昼的君王；虽有时被大大小小的云层遮蔽，却一再破云而出，从东到西散布光明与生命，直到全球最黑暗的角落也蒙光照。过去已稳固确立；未来，上帝必会眷顾。

Magna est veritas et praevalebit. 真理伟大，终必得胜。

Original Text

CHAPTER XII. THE NEW TESTAMENT.

§ 74. Literature.

Comp. the Lit. on the Life of Christ, § 14, and on the Apostolic Age, § 20.

I. The Critical Editions of the Greek Testament by Lachmann (1842–50, 2 vols.); Tischendorf (ed. octava critics major, 1869–72, 2 vols., with Prolegomena by C. R. Gregory, Part I., Leipz., 1884); Tregelles (1857–79); Westcott and Hort (1881, with a vol. of Introd. and Appendix. Cambridge and New York, revised ed. 1888).

Lachmann laid the foundation; Tischendorf and Tregelles greatly enlarged and carefully sifted the critical apparatus; Westcott and Hort restored the cleanest text from the oldest attainable sources; all substantially agree in principle and result, and give us the ancient uncial instead of the mediaeval cursive text.

Two bilingual editions also deserve special mention in connection with the recent revision of Luther’s and King James’s versions. Oskar von Gebhardt, Novum Testamentum Graece et Germanice, Lips., 1881, gives the last text of Tischendorf (with the readings of Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort below) and the revised translation of Luther. His Greek text is also separately issued with an "Adnotatio critica," not contained in the diglott edition. The Greek-English New Testament, containing Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text and the Revised English Version on opposite pages, with introduction by Schaff. New York (Harper & Brothers), 1882, revised ed. 1888.

The historico-critical Introductions, or literary Histories of the New Testament by Hug, De Wette, Credner, Guericke, Horne, Davidson, Tregelles, Grau, Hilgenfeld, Aberle, (R. Cath.), Bleek (4th ed. by Mangold, 1886), Reuss (6th ed. 1887), Holtzmann (2d ed. 1886), Weiss (1886), Salmon (3d ed. 1888).
Thiersch: Herstellung des historischen Standpunktes für die Kritik der neutestamentl. Schriften. Erlangen, 1845. (Against Baur and the Tübingen School.)—Edward C. Mitchell: Critical Handbook to the New Test. (on Authenticity, Canon, etc.). Lond. and Andover, 1880; French translation, Paris, 1882.—J. P. Lange: Grundriss der Bibelkunde. Heidelberg, 1881.—Philip Schaff: Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version. N. Y. and Lond., 1883, 3d ed. revised 1888.—G. D. Ladd: The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, N. York, 1883, 2 vols. The same, abridged, 1888.
The works quoted below on the Gospels and Epistles.

V. On the Canon of the New Test., the works of Kirchhofer (Quellensammlung, etc. Zürich, 1844, Engl. transl. enlarged by Charteris: Canonicity, etc. Edinb., 1881); Credner (Zur Gesch. des Kanon. Halle, 1847; Geschichte des Neutest. Kanon, herausg. von Volkmar. Berlin, 1860); Gaussen (Engl. transl., London, 1862; abridged transl. by Kirk, Boston, 1862); Tregelles (Canon Muratorianus. Oxford, 1867); Sam. Davidson (Lond., 1878, 3d ed., 1880); Westcott (Cambridge and London, 1855; 6th ed., 1889); Reuss (Histoire du canon des S. Écritures. Strasb., 2d ed., 1864); Ad. Harnack (Das muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung Apost.-katholischer Schriften, in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte," 1879, III., 358 sqq.; comp. 595 sqq.); F. Overbeck (Zur Geschichte des Kanons. Chemnitz, 1880); Réville (French, 1881); Theod. Zahn (Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, Part I-III., 1881–84; and Geschichte des Kanons d. N. T., Leipz., 1888 sqq., 3 vols). Comp. Harnack: Das N. T. um das Jahr. 200, Freiburg, 1889 (against Zahn), and Zahn’s reply, Leipz., 1889.

§ 75. Rise of the Apostolic Literature.

Christ is the book of life to be read by all. His religion is not an outward letter of command, like the law of Moses, but free, quickening spirit; not a literary production, but a moral creation; not a new system of theology or philosophy for the learned, but a communication of the divine life for the redemption of the whole world. Christ is the personal Word of God, the eternal Logos, who became flesh and dwelt upon earth as the true Shekinah, in the veiled glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. He spoke; and all the words of his mouth were, and still are, spirit and life. The human heart craves not a learned, letter-writing, literary Christ, but a wonder-working, cross-bearing, atoning Redeemer, risen, enthroned in heaven, and ruling the world; furnishing, at the same time, to men and angels an unending theme for meditation, discourse, and praise.

So, too, the Lord chose none of his apostles, with the single exception of Paul, from the ranks of the learned; he did not train them to literary authorship, nor give them, throughout his earthly life, a single express command to labor in that way. Plain fishermen of Galilee, unskilled in the wisdom of this world, but filled with the Holy Spirit of truth and the powers of the world to come, were commissioned to preach the glad tidings of salvation to all nations in the strength and in the name of their glorified Master, who sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and has promised to be with them to the end of time.

The gospel, accordingly, was first propagated and the church founded by the personal oral teaching and exhortation, the "preaching," "testimony," "word," "tradition," of the apostles and their disciples; as, in fact, to this day the living word is the indispensable or, at least, the principal means of promoting the Christian religion. Nearly all the books of the New Testament were written between the years 50 and 70, at least twenty years after the resurrection of Christ, and the founding of the church; and the Gospel and Epistles of John still later.

As the apostles’ field of labor expanded, it became too large for their personal attention, and required epistolary correspondence. The vital interests of Christianity and the wants of coming generations demanded a faithful record of the life and teaching of Christ by perfectly reliable witnesses. For oral tradition, among fallible men, is liable to so many accidental changes, that it loses in certainty and credibility as its distance from the fountain-head increases, till at last it can no longer be clearly distinguished from the additions and corruptions collected upon it. There was great danger, too, of a wilful distortion of the history and doctrine of Christianity by Judaizing and paganizing errorists, who had already raised their heads during the lifetime of the apostles. An authentic written record of the words and acts of Jesus and his disciples was therefore absolutely indispensable, not indeed to originate the church, but to keep it from corruption and to furnish it with a pure standard of faith and discipline.

Hence seven and twenty books by apostles and apostolic men, written under the special influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. These afford us a truthful picture of the history, the faiths, and the practice of primitive Christianity, "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."(1)

The collection of these writings into a canon, in distinction both from apocryphal or pseudo-apostolic works, and from orthodox yet merely human productions, was the work of the early church; and in performing it she was likewise guided by the Spirit of God and by a sound sense of truth. It was not finished to the satisfaction of all till the end of the fourth century, down to which time seven New Testament books (the "Antilegomena" of Eusebius), the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and in a certain sense also the Apocalypse of John, were by some considered of doubtful authorship or value. But the collection was no doubt begun, on the model of the Old Testament canon, in the first century;(2) and the principal books, the Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John, in a body, were in general use after the middle of the second century, and were read, either entire or by sections, in public worship, after the manner of the Jewish synagogue, for the edification of the people.

The external testimony of tradition alone cannot (for the Protestant Christian) decide the apostolic origin and canonical character of a book; it must be confirmed by the internal testimony of the book itself. But this is not wanting, and the general voice of Christendom for these eighteen hundred years has recognized in the little volume, which we call the New Testament, a book altogether unique in spiritual power and influence over the mind and heart of man, and of more interest and value than all the ancient and modern classics combined. If ever God spoke and still speaks to man, it is in this book.

§ 76. Character of the New Testament.

In these inspired writings we have, not indeed an equivalent, but a reliable substitute for the personal presence and the oral instruction of Christ and his apostles. The written word differs from the spoken only in form; the substance is the same, and has therefore the same authority and quickening power for us as it had for those who heard it first. Although these books were called forth apparently by special and accidental occasions, and were primarily addressed to particular circles of readers and adapted to peculiar circumstances, yet, as they present the eternal and unchangeable truth in living forms, they suit all circumstances and conditions. Tracts for the times, they are tracts for all times; intended for Jews and Greeks of the first century, they have the same interest for Englishmen and Americans of the nineteenth century. They are to this day not only the sole reliable and pure fountain of primitive Christianity, but also the infallible rule of Christian faith and practice. From this fountain the church has drunk the water of life for more than fifty generations, and will drink it till the end of time. In this rule she has a perpetual corrective for an her faults, and a protective against all error. Theological systems come and go, and draw from that treasury their larger or smaller additions to the stock of our knowledge of the truth; but they can never equal that infallible word of God, which abideth forever.

"Our little systems have their day,

They have their day and cease to be:

They are but broken lights of Thee,

And Thou, O God, art more than they."

The New Testament evinces its universal design in its very, style, which alone distinguishes it from all the literary productions of earlier and later times. It has a Greek body, a Hebrew soul, and a Christian spirit which rules both. The language is the Hellenistic idiom; that is, the Macedonian Greek as spoken by the Jews of the dispersion in the time of Christ; uniting, in a regenerated Christian form, the two great antagonistic nationalities and religions of the ancient world. The most beautiful language of heathendom and the venerable language of the Hebrews are here combined, and baptized with the spirit of Christianity, and made the picture of silver for the golden apple of the eternal truth of the gospel. The style of the Bible in general is singularly adapted to men of every class and grade of culture, affording the child the simple nourishment for its religious wants, and the profoundest thinker inexhaustible matter of study. The Bible is not simply a popular book, but a book of all nations, and for all societies, classes, and conditions of men. It is more than a book, it is an institution which rules the Christian world.

The New Testament presents, in its way, the same union of the divine and human as the person of Christ. In this sense also "the word became flesh, and dwells among us." As Christ was like us in body, soul, and spirit, sin only excepted, so the Scriptures, which "bear witness of him," are thoroughly human (though without doctrinal and ethical error) in contents and form, in the mode of their rise, their compilation, their preservation, and transmission; yet at the same time they are thoroughly divine both in thoughts and words, in origin, vitality, energy, and effect, and beneath the human servant-form of the letter, the eye of faith discerns the glory of "the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

The apostolic writings are of three kinds: historical, didactic, and prophetic. To the first class belong the Gospels and Acts; to the second, the Epistles; to the third, the Revelation. They are related to each other as regeneration, sanctification, and glorification; as foundation, house, and dome. Jesus Christ is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all. In the Gospels he walks in human form upon the earth, and accomplishes the work of redemption. In the Acts and Epistles he founds the church, and fills and guides it by his Spirit. And at last, in the visions of the Apocalypse, he comes again in glory, and with his bride, the church of the saints, reigns forever upon the new earth in the city of God.

This order corresponds with the natural progress of the Christian revelation and was universally adopted by the church, with the exception of a difference in the arrangement of the Epistles. The New Testament was not given in the form of a finished volume, but the several books grew together by recognition and use according to the law of internal fitness. Most of the ancient Manuscripts, Versions, and Catalogues arrange the books in the following order: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse.(3) Some put the Pauline Epistles before the Catholic Epistles.(4) Our English Bible follows the order of the Latin Vulgate.(5)

§ 77. Literature on the Gospels.

I. Harmonies of the Gospels.

They begin with Tatian’s Diatessaron, a.d. 170. See lists of older works in Fabricius, Bibl. Gr., III. 212; Hase, Leben Jesu, pp. 22–31 (fifth ed.); Robinson, Harmony, pp. v. and vi.; Darling, Cyclopaedia Bibliog. (I. Subjects, cols. 761–767); and McClintock and Strong (Cyclop., IV. 81). We give the chief works from Griesbach to Rushbrooke.

Griesbach (Synopsis, Halle, 1774, etc., 1822); Newcome (Dublin, 1778 and often; also Andover, 1834); Jos. Priestley (in Greek, London, 1778; in English, 1780); Jos. White (Diatessaron, Oxford, 1799, 1803); De Wette and Lücke (1818, 1842); Rödiger (1829, 1839); Greswell (Harmonia Evangelica, 1830, 5th ed. Oxford, 1856; Dissertations upon an Harmony, etc., 2d ed., Oxford, 1837, 4 vols.); Macbride (Diatessaron, Oxford, 1837); Wieseler (Chronolog. Synopse, Hamb., 1843); Krafft (d. 1845; Chronologie u. Harmonie der 4 Evang. Erlangen, 1848; edit. by Burger); Tischendorf (Synopsis Evang. Lips., 1851, 1854; 4th ed., 1878); Rud. Anger (Lips., 1852); Stroud (comprising a Synopsis and a Diatessaron, London, 1853) E. Robinson (A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the text of Hahn, Boston, 1845, 1851; revised ed., 1862; in English, 1846); James Strong (in English, New York, 1852; in Greek, 1854); R. Mimpriss (London, 1855); Douglas (1859); Sevin (Wiesbaden, 1866); Fr. Gardiner (A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the text of Tischendorf, with a Collation of the Textus Receptus, etc. Andover, 1876; also his Diatessaron, The Life of our Lord in the Words of the Gospels, Andover, 1871); J. R. Gilmore and Lyman Abbott (The Gospel History: being a Complete Chronological Narrative of the Life of our Lord, New York, 1881); W. G. Rushbrooke (Synopticon: an Exposition of the Common Matter in the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge, 1880–81, 2 parts; the Greek text of Tischendorf, corrected from Westcott and Hort). The last work is unique and superbly printed. It marks the differences of the narratives by different types and color, namely, the matter common to all Evangelists in red type, the matter common to each pair in black spaced type or capitals, the matter peculiar to each in ordinary black type. It furnishes the best basis for a detailed comparison and critical analysis.

II. Critical Discussions.

Nathaniel Lardner (1684–1768, a dissenting minister of great learning): The Credibility of the Gospel History. First published in 17 vols. 8vo, London, 1727–1757, and in his collected Works, ed. by A. Kippis, London, 1788 (in 11 vols.), vols. I.-V. Unsurpassed for honest and solid learning, and still valuable.

J. G. Eichhorn (d. 1827): Allgem. Bibliothek der Bibl. Liter., vol. V. (1794), pp. 759 sqq. Einleitung in das N. Testament., 1804, vol. I., 2d ed., 1820. Here he brought out his new idea of an Urevangelium.

Herbert Marsh (Bishop of Peterborough, d. 1839): An Illustration of the Hypothesis proposed in the Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels. Cambridge, 1803. Also his translation of J. D. Michaelis: Introduction to the New Test., with a Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Three First Gospels. London, 1802. A modification of Eichhorn’s hypothesis.

Fr. Schleiermacher: Kritischer Versuch über die Schriften des Lucas. Berlin, 1817 (Werke I. 2, pp. 1–220); trans. by Thirlwall, Lond., 1825. Comp. his Einleitung in das N. Testament. (posthumous).

J. C. L. Gieseler: Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien. Leipz., 1818.

Andrews Norton (a conservative Unitarian, died at Cambridge, 1853): The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. Boston, 1837; 2d ed., Cambridge, Mass., 1846–1848, 3 vols. Abridged ed. in 1 vol., Boston (Am. Unitar. Assoc.), 1867 and 1875. By the same: Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (posthumous). Boston. 1855. With special reference to Strauss.

Fr. Bleek (d. 1859): Beiträge zur Evangelien-Kritik. Berlin, 1846.

F. Chr. Baur (d. 1860): Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien. 1847. Comp. the first volume of his Church History (Germ. ed., pp. 22 sqq., 148 sqq.).

Isaac Da Costa: The Four Witnesses: being a Harmony of the Gospels on a New Principle. Transl. (from the Dutch) by David Scott, 1851; New York ed., 1855. Against Strauss.

Ad. Hilgenfeld (Tübingen School): Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtl. Bedeutung. Leipz., 1854. His Einleitung, 1875.

Canon Westcott: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London and Boston, 1860; 7th ed., London, 1888. Very useful.

Const. Tischendorf (d. 1874): Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? Leipz., 4th ed., 1866 (Engl. transl. by W. L. Gage, Boston, 1868).

H. Jul. Holtzmann: Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtl. Charakter. Leipz., 1863. See also his art. Evangelien in Schenkel’s "Bibel-Lex.," II. 207, and two articles on the Synoptic Question in the "Jahrbücher für Protest. Theol.," 1878, pp. 145 sqq. and 533 sqq.; but especially his Einleitung in das N. T., 2d ed., 1886.

C. Weizsäcker (successor of Dr. Baur, but less radical): Untersuchungen über die evang. Gesch., ihre Quellen, etc. Gotha, 1864.

Gustave d’Eichthal: Les Évangiles. Paris, 1863. 2 vols.

L. A. Sabatier: Essai sur les sources de la vie de Jésus. Paris, 1866.

Andrew Jukes: The Characteristic Differences of the Four Gospels. London, 1867.

Edward A. Thomson: The Four Evangelists; with the Distinctive Characteristics of their Gospels. Edinburgh, 1868.

C. A. Row: The Historical Character of the Gospels Tested by an Examination of their Contents. 1865–67. The Jesus of the Evangelists. London, 1868.

Karl Wieseler: Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte. Gotha, 1869.

Supernatural Religion (anonymous). London, 1873, 7th ed., 1879, vol. I., Part II., pp. 212 sqq., and vol. III. Comp. the careful review and refutation of this work by Bishop Lightfoot in a series of articles in the "Contemporary Review," 1875, sqq.

P. Godet: The Origin o f the Four Gospels. In his "Studies on the New Test.," 1873. Engl. transl. by W. H. Lyttelton. London, 1876. See also his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, Introd. and Appendix, Eng. trans. from 2d French ed. Edinb., 1875.

W. Sanday: The Gospels in the Second Century. London, 1876.

Bernhard Weiss (Professor in Berlin): Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen. Berlin, 1872. Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklärt. Halle, 1876. Two very thorough critical works. Comp. also his reply to Holtzmann in the "Jahrbücher for Protest. Theologie," 1878; and his Einleitung in’s N. T., 1886.

D. S. Gregory: Why Four Gospels? or, the Gospels for all the World. New York, 1877.

E. Renan: Les évangiles et la seconde génération Chrétienne. Paris, 1877.

Geo. P. Fisher (Professor in New Haven): The Beginnings of Christianity. New York, 1877. Chs. VIII.-XII. Also several articles on the Gospels in the "Princeton Review" for 1881.

Wm. Thomson (Archbishop of York): The Gospels. General Introduction to Speaker’s "Com. on the New Test.," vol. I., pp. xiii.-lxxv. London and New York, 1878.

Edwin A. Abbott (Head Master, City of London School): Gospels, in the ninth edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannia," vol. X., pp. 789–843. Edinburgh and New York, 1879.

Fred. Huidekoper (Unitar. Theol. Seminary, Meadville, Pa.): Indirect Testimony of History to the Genuineness of the Gospels. New York, 2d ed., 1879.

John Kennedy (D. D.): The Four Gospels: their Age and Authorship. Traced from the Fourth Century into the First. London; Am. ed., with an introduction by Edwin W. Rice. Philadelphia, 1880 (Am. Sunday School Union).

J. H. Scholten: Das Paulinische Evangelium. Transl. from the Dutch by E. B. Redepenning. Elberfeld, 1881.

C. Holsten: Die drei ursprünglichen, noch ungeschriebenen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1883 (79 pages). A modification of Baur’s tendency-hypothesis. Holsten assumes three forms of the original oral Gospel—the Pauline, the Petrine, and the Judaistic.

Norton, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Ebrard, Da Costa, Westcott, Lightfoot, Sanday, Kennedy, Thomson, Godet, Ezra Abbot, and Fisher are conservative and constructive, yet critical; Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Keim, Renan, Scholten, Davidson, and the author of "Supernatural Religion" are radical but stimulating and negatively helpful especially Baur, Reim, and Renan. Bleek, Ewald, Reuss, Meyer, and Weiss occupy independent middle ground, but all defend the genuineness of John except Reuss, who hesitates.

III. Commentaries.

Ancient Works: Origen (in Math., Luc., etc., fragmentary); Chrysostom (Hom. in Matth., ed. Fr. Field, 1839); Jerome (in Matth.; in Luc.); Augustine (Quaestionum Evangeliorum libri II.); Theophylact (Comment, in 4 Evang., Gr. et Lat.); Euthymius Zigabenus (Com. in 4 Evang., Gr. et Lat.); Thomas Aquinas (Catena aurea in Evan .; English edition by Pusey, Keble, and Newman. Oxford, 1841–45, 4 vols.).
Since the Reformation: Calvin (Harmonia, and Ev. Joa., 1553; Engl. ed., Edinb., 1846, 3 vols.); Maldonatus (R. Cath., Com. in quatuor Evang., 1615); Pasquier Quesnel (Jansenist; The Four Gospels, French and English, several editions); John Lightfoot (Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas, and Harmonia quatuor Evangelistarum tum inter se, tum cum Veteri Testamento, in his Opera. London, 1684; also Leipz., 1675; Rotterdam, 1686; London, 1825); J. Macknight (Harm. of the Four Gospels, with Paraphrase and Notes. London, 1756; 5th ed., 1819, 2 vols.); George Campbell (d. 1796; The Four Gospels, with Dissertations and Notes. Aberdeen, 1814, 4 vols.; Andover, 1837, 2 vols.).
In the nineteenth century: Olshausen (d. 1839; 3d ed., 1837 sqq. revised and completed by Ebrard and others; Engl. transl., Edinb. and Now York); De Wette (d. 1849; Exeget. Handbuch zum N. T., 1837; 5th ed. by Brückner and others, 1863 sqq.); Bleek (d. 1859; Synopt. Erklärung der 3 ersten Evang., 1862, 2 vols.); Meyer (d. 1874; 6th ed., 1876–80, Matthew by Meyer Mark, Luke and John revised by Weiss); Lange (Am. ed. enlarged, New York and Edinb., 1864 sqq., 3 vols.); Alford (d. 1871; 6th ed., 1868; new ed., 1877); Wordsworth (5th ed., 1866); Jos. A. Alexander (d. 1859; Mark and Matthew, the latter unfinished); McClellan (The Four Gospels, with the Chronological and Analytical Harmony. London, 1875); Keil (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 1877–1881); Morison (Matthew and Mark, the latter in a third ed., 1882); Godet (Luke and John, French and English), Strack and Zöckler (1888). For English readers: Speaker’s Com., Ellicott’s Com., Schaff’s Revision Com., 1882, etc.

Comp. a list of Com. on the Gospels in the English transl. of Meyer on Matthew (Edinb., 1877, pp. xxiv.-xliii).

§ 78. The Four Gospels.

General Character and Aim of the Gospels.

Christianity is a cheerful religion and brings joy and peace from heaven to earth. The New Testament opens with the gospel, that is with the authentic record of the history of all histories, the glad tidings of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.(6) The four canonical Gospels are only variations of the same theme, a fourfold representation of one and the same gospel, animated by the same spirit.(7) They are not full biographies,(8) but only memoirs or a selection of characteristic features of Christ’s life and work as they struck each Evangelist and best suited his purpose and his class of readers.(9) They are not photographs which give only the momentary image in a single attitude, but living pictures from repeated sittings, and reproduce the varied expressions and aspects of Christ’s person.

The style is natural, unadorned, straightforward, and objective. Their artless and naïve simplicity resembles the earliest historic records in the Old Testament, and has its peculiar and abiding charm for all classes of people and all degrees of culture. The authors, in noble modesty and self-forgetfulness, suppress their personal views and feelings, retire in worshipful silence before their great subject, and strive to set it forth in all its own unaided power.

The first and fourth Gospels were composed by apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John; the second and third, under the influence of Peter and Paul, and by their disciples Mark and Luke, so as to be indirectly likewise of apostolic origin and canonical authority. Hence Mark is often called the Gospel of Peter, and Luke the Gospel of Paul.

The common practical aim of the Evangelists is to lead the reader to a saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah and Redeemer of the world.(10)

Common Origin.

The Gospels have their common source in the personal intercourse of two of the writers with Christ, and in the oral tradition of the apostles and other eye-witnesses. Plain fishermen of Galilee could not have drawn such a portrait of Jesus if he had not sat for it. It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus. They did not create the divine original, but they faithfully preserved and reproduced it.

The gospel story, being constantly repeated in public preaching and in private circles, assumed a fixed, stereotyped form; the more readily, on account of the reverence of the first disciples for every word of their divine Master. Hence the striking agreement of the first three, or synoptical Gospels, which, in matter and form, are only variations of the same theme. Luke used, according to his own statement, besides the oral tradition, written documents on certain parts of the life of Jesus, which doubtless appeared early among the first disciples. The Gospel of Mark, the confidant of Peter, is a faithful copy of the gospel preached and otherwise communicated by this apostle; with the use, perhaps, of Hebrew records which Peter may have made from time to time under the fresh impression of the events themselves.

Individual Characteristics.

But with all their similarity in matter and style, each of the Gospels, above all the fourth, has its peculiarities, answering to the personal character of its author, his special design, and the circumstances of his readers. The several evangelists present the infinite fulness of the life and person of Jesus in different aspects and different relations to mankind; and they complete one another. The symbolical poesy of the church compares them with the four rivers of Paradise, and with the four cherubic representatives of the creation, assigning the man to Matthew, the lion to Mark, the ox to Luke, and the eagle to John.

The apparent contradictions of these narratives, when closely examined, sufficiently solve themselves, in all essential points, and serve only to attest the honesty, impartiality, and credibility of the authors. At the same time the striking combination of resemblances and differences stimulates close observation and minute comparison, and thus impresses the events of the life of Christ more vividly and deeply upon the mind and heart of the reader than a single narrative could do. The immense labor of late years in bringing out the comparative characteristics of the Gospels and in harmonizing their discrepancies has not been in vain, and has left a stronger conviction of their independent worth and mutual completeness.

Matthew wrote for Jews, Mark for Romans, Luke for Greeks, John for advanced Christians; but all are suited for Christians in every age and nation.(11) The first Gospel exhibits Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and Lawgiver of the kingdom of heaven who challenges our obedience; the second Gospel as the mighty conqueror and worker of miracles who excites our astonishment; the third Gospel as the sympathizing Friend and Saviour of men who commands our confidence; the fourth Gospel as the eternal Son of God who became flesh for our salvation and claims our adoration and worship, that by believing in him we may have eternal life. The presiding mind which planned this fourfold gospel and employed the agents without a formal agreement and in conformity to their talents, tastes, and spheres of usefulness, is the Spirit of that Lord who is both the Son of Man and the Son of God, the Saviour of us all.

Time Of Composition.

As to the time of composition, external testimony and internal evidence which modern critical speculations have not been able to invalidate, point to the seventh decade of the first century for the Synoptic Gospels, and to the ninth decade for the Gospel of John.

The Synoptic Gospels were certainly written before a.d. 70; for they describe the destruction of Jerusalem as an event still future, though nigh at hand, and connect it immediately with the glorious appearing of our Lord, which it was thought might take place within the generation then living, although no precise date is fixed anywhere, the Lord himself declaring it to be unknown even to him. Had the Evangelists written after that terrible catastrophe, they would naturally have made some allusion to it, or so arranged the eschatological discourses of our Lord (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) as to enable the reader clearly to discriminate between the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment of the world, as typically foreshadowed by the former.(12)

On the other hand, a considerable number of years must have elapsed after the resurrection. This is indicated by the fact that several imperfect attempts at a gospel history had previously been made (Luke 1:1), and by such a phrase as: "until this day" (Matt. 27:8; 28:15).

But it is quite impossible to fix the precise year of composition. The silence of the Epistles is no conclusive argument that the Synoptists wrote after the death of James, Peter, and Paul; for there is the same silence in the Acts concerning the Epistles of Paul, and in the Epistles concerning the Acts. The apostles did not quote each other’s writings. the only exception is the reference of Peter to the Epistles of Paul. In the multiplicity of their labors the Evangelists may have been engaged for several years in preparing their works until they assumed their present shape. The composition of a life of Christ now may well employ many years of the profoundest study.

The Hebrew Matthew was probably composed first; then Mark; the Greek Matthew and Luke cannot be far apart. If the Acts, which suddenly break off with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (61–63), were written before the death of the apostle, the third Gospel, which is referred to as "the first treatise" (Acts 1:1), must have been composed before a.d. 65 or 64, perhaps, in Caesarea, where Luke had the best opportunity to gather his material during Paul’s imprisonment between 58 and 60; but it was probably not published till a few years afterwards. Whether the later Synoptists knew and used the earlier will be discussed in the next section.

John, according to the universal testimony of antiquity, which is confirmed by internal evidence, wrote his Gospel last, after the fall of Jerusalem and after the final separation of the Christians from the Jews. He evidently presupposes the Synoptic Gospels (although he never refers to them), and omits the eschatological and many other discourses and miracles, even the institution of the sacraments, because they were already sufficiently known throughout the church. But in this case too it is impossible to fix the year of composition. John carried his Gospel in his heart and memory for many years and gradually reduced it to writing in his old age, between a.d. 80 and 100; for he lived to the close of the first century and, perhaps, saw the dawn of the second.

Credibility.

The Gospels make upon every unsophisticated reader the impression of absolute honesty. They tell the story without rhetorical embellishment, without any exclamation of surprise or admiration, without note and comment. They frankly record the weaknesses and failings of the disciples, including themselves, the rebukes which their Master administered to them for their carnal misunderstandings and want of faith, their cowardice and desertion in the most trying hour, their utter despondency after the crucifixion, the ambitious request of John and James, the denial of Peter, the treason of Judas. They dwell even with circumstantial minuteness upon the great sin of the leader of the Twelve, especially the Gospel of Mark, who derived his details no doubt from Peter’s own lips. They conceal nothing, they apologize for nothing, they exaggerate nothing. Their authors are utterly unconcerned about their own fame, and withhold their own name; their sole object is to tell the story of Jesus, which carries its own irresistible force and charm to the heart of every truth-loving reader. The very discrepancies in minor details increase confidence and exclude the suspicion of collusion; for it is a generally acknowledged principle in legal evidence that circumstantial variation in the testimony of witnesses confirms their substantial agreement. There is no historical work of ancient times which carries on its very face such a seal of truthfulness as these Gospels.

The credibility of the canonical Gospels receives also negative confirmation from the numerous apocryphal Gospels which by their immeasurable inferiority and childishness prove the utter inability of the human imagination, whether orthodox or heterodox, to produce such a character as the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

No post-apostolic writers could have composed the canonical Gospels, and the apostles themselves could not have composed them without the inspiration of the spirit of Christ.

Notes.

The Symbolism of the Gospels. This belongs to the history of Christian poetry and art, but also to the history of exegesis, and may be briefly mentioned here. It presents the limited recognition of the individuality of the Gospels among the fathers and throughout the middle ages.

The symbolic attributes of the Evangelists were suggested by Ezekiel’s vision of the four cherubim which represent the creation and carry the throne of God (Ez. 1:15 sqq.; 10:1 sqq.; 11:22), and by the four "living creatures" (zw'a, not qhriva, "beasts," with which the E. V. confounds them) in the Apocalypse (Rev. 4:6–9; 5:6, 8, 11, 14; 6:1, 3, 5, 6, 7; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4).

(1.) The theological use. The cherubic figures which the prophet saw in his exile on the banks of the Chebar, symbolize the divine attributes of majesty and strength reflected in the animal creation; and the winged bulls and lions and the eagle-beaded men of Assyrian monuments have a similar significance. But the cherubim were interpreted as prophetic types of the four Gospels as early as the second century, with some difference in the application.

Irenaeus (about 170) regards the faces of the cherubim (man, lion, ox, eagle) as "images of the life and work of the Son of God," and assigns the man to Matthew, and the ox to Luke, but the eagle to Mark and the lion to John (Adv. Haer., III. 11, 8, ed. Stieren I. 469 sq.). Afterwards the signs of Mark and John were properly exchanged. So by Jerome (d. 419) in his Com. on Ezekiel and other passages. I quote from the Prologus to his Comment. in Ev. Matthaei (Opera, vol. VII., p. 19, ed. Migne): "Haec igitur quatuor Evangelia multo ante praedicta, Ezechielis quoque volumen probat, in quo prima visio ita contexitur: ’Et in medio sicut similitudo quatuor animalium: et vultus eorum facies hominis, et facies leonis, et facies vituli, et facies aquilae’ (Ezech. 1:5 et 10). Prima hominis facies Matthaeum significat, qui quasi de homine exorsus est scribere: ’Liber generationis Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham’ (Matth. 1). Secunda, Marcum, in quo [al. qua] vox leonis in eremo rugientis auditur: ’Vox clamantis in deserto [al. eremo], Parate viam Domini, rectas facile semitas ejus’ (Marc. 1:3). Tertia, vituli, quae evangelistam Lucam a Zacharia sacerdote sumpsisse initium praefigurat. Quarta, Joannem evangelistam, qui assumptis pennis aquilae, et ad altiora festinans, de Verbo Dei disputat.

Augustin (De Consens. Evang., Lib. I., c. 6, in Migne’s ed. of the Opera, tom. III., 1046) assigns the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark (whom he wrongly regarded as an abbreviator of Matthew), the ox to Luke, and the eagle to John, because "he soars as an eagle above the clouds of human infirmity, and gazes on the light of immutable truth with most keen and steady eyes of the heart." In another place (Tract. XXXVI. in Joh. Ev., c. 8, § 1) Augustin says: "The other three Evangelists walked as it were on earth with our Lord as man (tamquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulabant) and said but little of his divinity. But John, as if he found it oppressive to walk on earth, opened his treatise, so to speak, with a peal of thunder .... To the sublimity of this beginning all the rest corresponds, and he speaks of our Lord’s divinity as no other." He calls the evangelic quaternion "the fourfold car of the Lord, upon which he rides throughout the world and subdues the nations to his easy yoke." Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis Script.) assigns the man to Matthew, the ox to Mark, the lion to Luke. These variations in the application of the emblems reveal the defects of the analogy. The man might as well (with Lange) be assigned to Luke’s Gospel of humanity as the sacrificial ox. But Jerome’s distribution of the symbols prevailed and was represented in poetry by Sedulius in the fifth century.

Among recent divines, Bishop Wordsworth, of Lincoln, who is in full sympathy with the fathers and all their pious exegetical fancies, has thus eloquently reproduced the cherubic symbolism (in his Com. on The New Test., vol. I., p. xli): "The Christian church, looking at the origin of the Four Gospels, and the attributes which God has in rich measure been pleased to bestow upon them by his Holy Spirit, found a prophetic picture of them in the four living cherubim, named from heavenly knowledge, seen by the prophet Ezekiel at the river of Chebar. Like them the Gospels are four in number; like them they are the chariot of God, who sitteth between the cherubim; like them they bear him on a winged throne into all lands; like them they move wherever the Spirit guides them; like them they are marvellously joined together, intertwined with coincidences and differences: wing interwoven with wing, and wheel interwoven with wheel; like them they are full of eyes, and sparkle with heavenly light; like them they sweep from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven, and fly with lightning’s speed and with the noise of many waters. Their sound is gone out into all lands, and the words to the end of the world." Among German divines, Dr. Lange is the most ingenious expounder of this symbolism, but he exchanges the symbols of Matthew and Luke. See his Leben Jesu, I., 156 sqq., and his Bibelkunde (1881), p. 176.

(2.) The pictorial representations of the four Evangelists, from the rude beginnings in the catacombs and the mosaics of the basilicas at Rome and Ravenna to modern times, have been well described by Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, vol. I, 132–175 (Boston ed., 1865). She distinguishes seven steps in the progress of Christian art: 1^st, the mere fact, the four scrolls, or books of the Evangelists; 2^d, the idea, the four rivers of salvation flowing from on high to fertilize the whole earth; 3^d, the prophetic symbol, the winged cherub of fourfold aspect; 4^th, the Christian symbol, the four "beasts" (better, "living creatures") in the Apocalypse, with or without the angel-wings; 5^th, the combination of the emblematical animal with the human form; 6^th, the human personages, each of venerable or inspired aspect, as becomes the teacher and witness, and each attended by the scriptural emblem—no longer an emblem, but an attribute—marking his individual vocation and character; 7^th, the human being only, holding his Gospel, i.e., his version of the teaching and example of Christ.

(3.) Religious poetry gives expression to the same idea. We find it in Juvencus and Sedulius, and in its perfection in Adam of St. Victor, the greatest Latin poet of the middle ages (about 1172). He made the Evangelists the subject of two musical poems: "Plausu chorus laetabundo," and "Jocundare plebs fidelis." Both are found in Gautier’s edition (1858), and with a good English translation by Digby S. Wrangham in The Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St. Victor, London, 1881, vol, II., pp. 156–169. The first has been well reproduced in English by Dr. Plumptre (in his Com. on the Synoptists, in Ellicott’s series, but with the omission of the first three stanzas). I will quote the third stanza of the first (with Wrangham’s version):

"Circa thema generale,

Habet quisque speciale

Styli privilegium:

Quod praesignat in propheta

Forma pictus sub discreta

Vultus animalium."

"Though one set of facts is statted,

They by each one are related

In a manner all his own:

This the prophet by four creatures,

Each of different form and features,

Pictures for us, one by one."

In the second poem the following stanzas are the best:

Formam viri dant Matthaeo,

Quia scripsit sic de Deo,

Sicut descendit ab eo,

Quem plasmavit, homine.

Lucas bos est in figura

Ut praemonstrat in Scriptura,

Hostiarum tangens jura

Legis sub velamine.

Matthew as the man is treated,

Since 'tis he, who hath related,

How from man, by God created,

God did, as a man, descend.

Luke the ox's semmblance weareth,

Since his Gospel first declareth,

As he thence the Law's veil teareth,

Sacrifice' aim and end.

Marcus, lleo per desertum

Clamans, rugit in apertum:

Iter fiat Deo certum,

Mundum cor a crimine.

Sed Johannes, ala bina

Charitatis, aquilina

Forma, fetur in divinaa

Puriori lumine.

Mark, the lion, his voice upraises,

Crying out in desert places:

"Cleanse your hearts from all sin's traces,

For our God a way prepare!"

John, the eagle's feature having,

Earth on love's twain pinions leaving,

Soars aloft, God's truth perceiving

In light's purer atmosphere.

Ecce forma bestialis

Quam Scriptura prophetalis

Notat, sed materialis

Haec est impositio.

Currunt rotis, volant alis;

Inest sensus spiuritalis;

Rota gressus est aequalis,

Ala contemplatio.

Thus the Thus the forms of brute creation

Prophets in their revelation

Use; but in their application

All their sacred lessons bring.

Mystic meaning underlieth

Wheels that run, or wing that flieth

One consent the first implieth,

Contemplation means the wing.

Quatuor decribunt isti

Quadriformes actus Christi:

Et figurant, ut audisti,

Quisque sua formula.

Natus homo declaratur

Vitulus sacrificatur,

Leo mortem depraedatur,

Et ascendit aquila.

These four writers, in portraying

Christ, his fourfold acts displaying.

Show him – thou hast heard the saying –

Each of them distinctively;

Man – of woman generated;

Ox – in offering dedicated;

Lion – having death defeated;

Eagle – mounting to the sky.

Paradisus lis regature,

Viret, floret, foecundatur,

His abundat, his laetatur

Quatuor fluminibus:

Fons est Christus, hi aunt rivi,

Fons est altus, hi proclivi,

Ut saporem fontis vivi

Ministrent fidelibus.

These four streams, through Eden flowing,

Moisture, verdure, still bestowing,

Make the flowers and fruit there growing

In rich plenty kaugh and sing

Christ the cource, these streams forth sending;

High the source, these downward trending;

That they thus a taste transcending

Of life's fount to saints may bring.

Horum rivo debriatis

Sitis crescat caritatis,

Ut de fonte pietatis

Satiemur plenius.

Horum trabat nos doctrina

Vitiorum de sentinâ,

Sicque ducat ad divina

Ab imo superius.

At their stream inebriated,

Be our love's thirst aggravated,

More completely to be sated

At a holier love's full fount!

May the doctrine they provide us

Draw us from sin's slough beside us,

An to things divine thus guide us,

As from earth we upward mount!

The Credibility of the Gospels would never have been denied if it were not for the philosophical and dogmatic skepticism which desires to get rid of the supernatural and miraculous at any price. It impresses itself upon men of the highest culture as well as upon the unlearned reader. The striking testimony of Rousseau is well known and need not be repeated. I will quote only from two great writers who were by no means biased in favor of orthodoxy. Dr. W. E. Channing, the distinguished leader of American Unitarianism, says (with reference to the Strauss and Parker skepticism): "I know no histories to be compared with the Gospels in marks of truth, in pregnancy of meaning, in quickening power." ... "As to his [Christ’s] biographers, they speak for themselves. Never were more simple and honest ones. They show us that none in connection with Christ would give any aid to his conception, for they do not receive it .... The Gospels are to me their own evidence. They are the simple records of a being who could not have been invented, and the miraculous and more common parts of his life so hang together, are so permeated by the same spirit, are so plainly outgoings of one and the same man, that I see not how we can admit one without the other." See Channing’s Memoir by his nephew, tenth ed., Boston, 1874 Vol. II., pp. 431, 434, 436. The testimony of Goethe will have with many still greater weight. He recognized in the Gospels the highest manifestation of the Divine which ever appeared in this world, and the summit of moral culture beyond which the human mind can never rise, however much it may progress in any other direction. "Ich halte die Evangelien," he says, "für durchaus ächt; denn es ist in ihnen der Abglanz einer Hoheit wirksam, die von der Person Christi ausging: die ist qöttlicher Art, wie nur je auf Erden das Göttliche erschienen ist." (Gespräche mit Eckermann, III., 371.) Shortly before his death he said to the same friend: "Wir wissen gar nicht, was wir Luther’n und der Reformation zu danken haben. Mag die geistige Cultur immer Fortschreiten, mögen die Naturwissenschaften in immer breiterer Ausdehnung und Tiefe wachsen und der menschliche Geist sick erweitern wie er will: über die Hoheit und sittliche Cultur des Christenthums, wie es in den Evangelien leuchtet, wird er nicht hinauskommen." And such Gospels Strauss and Renan would fain make us believe to be poetic fictions of illiterate Galilaeans! This would be the most incredible miracle of all.

§ 79. The Synoptists.

(See the Lit. in § 78.)

The Synoptic Problem.

The fourth Gospel stands by itself and differs widely from the others in contents and style, as well as in distance of time of composition. There can be no doubt that the author, writing towards the close of the first century, must have known the three older ones.

But the first three Gospels present the unique phenomenon of a most striking agreement and an equally striking disagreement both in matter and style, such as is not found among any three writers on the same subject. Hence they are called the Synoptic or Synoptical Gospels, and the three Evangelists, Synoptists.(13) This fact makes a harmony of the Gospels possible in all essentials, and yet impossible in many minor details. The agreement is often literal, and the disagreement often borders on contradiction, but without invalidating the essential harmony.

The interrelationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is, perhaps, the most complicated and perplexing critical problem in the history of literature. The problem derives great importance from its close connection with the life of Christ, and has therefore tried to the utmost the learning, acumen, and ingenuity of modern scholars for nearly a century. The range of hypotheses has been almost exhausted, and yet no harmonious conclusion reached.

The Relationship.

The general agreement of the Synoptists consists:

In the harmonious delineation of the character of Christ. The physiognomy is the same, only under three somewhat different aspects. All represent him as the Son of man and as the Son of God, as the promised Messiah and Saviour, teaching the purest doctrine, living a spotless life, performing mighty miracles, suffering and dying for the sins of the world, and rising in triumph to establish his kingdom of truth and righteousness. Such unity in the unique character of the hero of the three narratives has no parallel in secular or sacred histories or biographies, and is the best guarantee of the truthfulness of the picture.
In the plan and arrangement of the evangelical history, yet with striking peculiarities.

(a.) Matthew 1–2, and Luke 1–2, and 3:23–38, begin with the genealogy and infancy of Christ, but with different facts drawn from different sources. Mark opens at once with the preaching of the Baptist; while the fourth Evangelist goes back to the eternal pre-existence of the Logos. About the thirty years of Christ’s private life and his quiet training for the great work they are all silent, with the exception of Luke, who gives us a glimpse of his early youth in the temple (Luke2:42–52).

(b.) The preaching and baptism of John which prepared the way for the public ministry of Christ, is related by all the Synoptists in parallel sections: Matt. 3:1–12; Mark 1:1–8; Luke 3:1–18.

(c.) Christ’s baptism and temptation, the Messianic inauguration and Messianic trial: Matt. 3:13–17; 4:1–11; Mark 1:9–11, 12, 13 (very brief); Luke 3:21–23; 4:1–13. The variations here between Matthew and Luke are very slight, as in the order of the second and third temptation. John gives the testimony of the Baptist to Christ, and alludes to his baptism (John 1:32–34), but differs from the Synoptists.

(d.) The public ministry of Christ in Galilee: Matt. 4:12–18:35; Mark 1:14–9:50; Luke 4:14–9:50. But Matthew 14:22–16:12, and Mark 6:45–8:26, narrate a series of events connected with the Galilaean ministry, which are wanting in Luke; while Luke 9:51–18:14, has another series of events and parables connected with the last journey to Jerusalem which are peculiar to him.

(e.) The journey to Jerusalem: Matt. 19:1–20:31; Mark 10:1–52; Luke 18:15–19:28.

(f.) The entry into Jerusalem and activity there during the week before the last passover: Matt. 21–25; Mark 11–13; Luke 19:29–21:38.

(g.) The passion, crucifixion, and resurrection in parallel sections, but with considerable minor divergences, especially in the denial of Peter and the history of the resurrection: Matt. 26–28; Mark 14–16; Luke 22–24.

The events of the last week, from the entry to the resurrection (from Palm Sunday to Easter), occupy in all the largest space, about one-fourth of the whole narrative.

In the selection of the same material and in verbal coincidences, as in the eschatological discourses of Christ, with an almost equal number of little differences. Thus the three accounts of the hearing of the paralytic (Matt. 9:1–8, and parallel passages), the feeding of the five thousand, the transfiguration, almost verbally agree. Occasionally the Synoptists concur in rare and difficult words and forms in the same connection, as ejpiouvsio" »in the Lord'" Prayer¼, the diminutive wjtivon, little ear (of Malchus, Matt. 26:51, and parallel passages), duskovlw", hard (for a rich man to enter into the kingdom, Matt. 19:23, etc.). These coincidences are the more striking since our Lord spoke usually in Aramaic; but those words may have been Palestinian provincialisms.(14)

The largest portion of verbal agreement, to the extent of about seven-eighths, is found in the words of others, especially of Christ; and the largest portion of disagreement in the narratives of the writers.(15) This fact bears against the theory of interdependence, and proves, on the one hand, the reverent loyalty of all the Synoptists to the teaching of the great Master, but also, on the other hand, their freedom and independence of observation and judgment in the narration of facts. Words can be accurately reported only in one form, as they were spoken; while events may be correctly narrated in different words.

Numerical Estimates Of The Harmony And Variation.

The extent of the coincidences, and divergences admits of an approximate calculation by sections, verses, and words. In every case the difference of size must be kept in mind: Luke is the largest, with 72 pages (in Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament); Matthew comes next, with 68 pages; Mark last, with 42 pages. (John has 55 pages.)

1. Estimate by Sections.

Matthew has in all 78, Mark, 67, Luke, 93 sections.

Dividing the Synoptic text into 124 sections, with Dr. Reuss,(16)

All Evangelists have in common 47 sections.

Matthew and Mark alone have 12 "

Matthew and Luke " " 2 "

Mark and Luke " " 6 "

Sections peculiar to Matthew 17

" " " Mark 2

" " " Luke 38

Another arrangement by sections has been made by Norton, Stroud, and Westcott.(17) If the total contents of the Gospels be represented by 100, the following result is obtained:

Mark has 7 peculiarities and 93 coincidences.

Matthew has 42 " " 58 "

Luke has 59 " " 41 "

[John has 92 " " 8 " ]

If the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100, their proportion is:

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have 53 coincidences.

Matthew and Luke have 21 "

Matthew and Mark have 20 "

Mark and Luke have 6 "

"In St. Mark," says Westcott, "there are not more than twenty-four verses to which no parallel exists in St. Matthew and St. Luke, though St. Mark exhibits everywhere traits of vivid detail which are peculiar to his narrative."

2. Estimate by Verses.

According to the calculation of Reuss,(18)

Matthew contains 330 verses peculiar to him.

Mark contains 68 " " "

Luke contains 541 " " "

Matthew and Mark have from 170 to 180 verses in common, but not found in Luke.

Matthew and Luke have from 230 to 240 verses in common, but not found in Mark.

Mark and Luke have about 50 verses in common, but not found in Matthew.

The total number of verses common to all three Synoptists is only from 330 to 370. But, as the verses in the second Gospel are generally shorter, it is impossible to make an exact mathematical calculation by verses.

3. Estimate by Words.

A still more accurate test can be furnished by the number of words. This has not yet been made as far as I know, but a basis of calculation is furnished by Rushbrooke in his admirably printed Synopticon (1880), where the words common to the three Synoptists, the words common to each pair, and the words peculiar to each, are distinguished by different type and color.(19) The words found in all constitute the "triple tradition," and the nearest approximation to the common Greek source from which all have directly or indirectly drawn. On the basis of this Synopticon the following calculations have been made:

A. –– Number of words in

Words common to all

Per cent of words in common.

Matthew 18,222

2,651, or

.14 ¹/₂

Mark 11,158

2,651, or

.23 ³/₄

Luke 19,209

2,651, or

.13 ³/₄

Total 48,589

7,953, or

.16 ¹/₃

B. –– Additional words in common. Whole per cent in common

Matthew 2,793 (or in all 5,444) with Mark 29+

Mark 2,793 (or in all 5,444) with Matthew 48+

Matthew 2,415 (or in all 5,066) with Luke 27+

Luke 2,415 (or in all 5,066) with Matthew 26+

Mark 1,174 (or in all 3,825) with Luke 34+

Luke 1,174 (or in all 3,825) with Mark 20-

C. –– Words peculiar to Matthew 10,363, or 56+ percent.

Words peculiar to Mark 4,540, or 40+ percent

Words peculiar to Luke 12,969, or 67+ percent

Total 27,872

D. –– These figures give the following results:

(a.) The proportion of words peculiar to the Synoptic Gospels is 28,000 out of 48,000, more than one half.

In Matthew 56 words out of every 100 are peculiar.

In Mark 40 words out of every 100 are peculiar.

In Luke 67 words out of every 100 are peculiar.

(b.) The number of coincidences common to all three is less than the number of the divergences.

Matthew agrees with the other two Gospels in 1 word out of 7.

Mark agrees with the other two Gospels in 1 word out of 4½.

Luke agrees with the other two Gospels in 1 word out of 8.

(c.) But, comparing the Gospels two by two, it is evident that Matthew and Mark have most in common, and Matthew and Luke are most divergent.

One-half of Mark is found in Matthew.

One fourth of Luke is found in Matthew.

One-third of Mark is found in Luke.(20)

(d.) The general conclusion from these figures is that all three Gospels widely diverge from the common matter, or triple tradition, Mark the least so and Luke the most (almost twice as much as Mark). On the other hand, both Matthew and Luke are nearer Mark than Luke and Matthew are to each other.

The Solution of the Problem.

Three ways open themselves for a solution of the Synoptic problem: either the Synoptists depend on one another; or they all depend on older sources; or the dependence is of both kinds. Each of these hypotheses admits again of several modifications.(21)

A satisfactory solution of the problem must account for the differences as well as for the coincidences. If this test be applied, the first and the third hypotheses with their various modifications must be ruled out as unsatisfactory, and we are shut up to the second as at least the most probable.

The Canonical Gospels Independent of One Another.

There is no direct evidence that any of the three Synoptists saw and used the work of the others; nor is the agreement of such a character that it may not be as easily and better explained from antecedent sources. The advocates of the theory of interdependency, or the "borrowing" hypothesis,(22) differ widely among themselves: some make Matthew, others. Mark, others Luke, the source of the other two or at least of one of them; while still others go back from the Synoptists in their present form to a proto-Mark (Urmarkus), or proto-Matthew (Urmatthaeus), proto-Luke (Urlukas), or other fictitious antecanonical documents; thereby confessing the insufficiency of the borrowing hypothesis pure and simple.

There is no allusion in any of the Synoptists to the others; and yet Luke expressly refers to many earlier attempts to write the gospel history. Papias, Irenaeus, and other ancient writers assume that they wrote independently.(23) The first who made Mark a copyist of Matthew is Augustin, and his view has been completely reversed by modern research. The whole theory degrades one or two Synoptists to the position of slavish and yet arbitrary compilers, not to say plagiarists; it assumes a strange mixture of dependence and affected originality; it weakens the independent value of their history; and it does not account for the omissions of most important matter, and for many differences in common matter. For the Synoptists often differ just where we should most expect them to agree. Why should Mark be silent about the history of the infancy, the whole sermon on the Mount (the Magna Charta of Christ’s kingdom), the Lord’s Prayer, and important parables, if he had Matthew 1–2, 5–7, 13, before him? Why should he, a pupil of Peter, record the Lord’s severe rebuke to Peter (Mark 8:27–33), but fail to mention from Matthew 16:16–23 the preceding remarkable laudation: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church?" Why should Luke omit the greater part of the sermon on the Mount, and all the appearances of the risen Lord in Galilee? Why should he ignore the touching anointing scene in Bethany, and thus neglect to aid in fulfilling the Lord’s prediction that this act of devotion should be spoken of as a memorial of Mary "wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9)? Why should he, the pupil and companion of Paul, fail to record the adoration of the Magi, the story of the woman of Canaan, and the command to evangelize the Gentiles, so clearly related by Matthew, the Evangelist of the Jews (Matt. 2:1–12; 15:21–28; 24:14; 28:19)? Why should Luke and Matthew give different genealogies of Christ, and even different reports of the model prayer of our Lord, Luke omitting (beside the doxology, which is also wanting in the best MSS. of Matthew) the petition, "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth," and the concluding petition, "but deliver us from evil" (or "the evil one"), and substituting "sins" for "debts," and "Father" for "Our Father who art in heaven"? Why should all three Synoptists differ even in the brief and official title on the Cross, and in the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, where Paul, writing in 57, agrees with Luke, referring to a revelation from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23)? Had the Synoptists seen the work of the others, they could easily have harmonized these discrepancies and avoided the appearance of contradiction. To suppose that they purposely varied to conceal plagiarism is a moral impossibility. We can conceive no reasonable motive of adding a third Gospel to two already known to the writer, except on the ground of serious defects, which do not exist (certainly not in Matthew and Luke as compared with Mark), or on the ground of a presumption which is inconsistent with the modest tone and the omission of the very name of the writers.

These difficulties are felt by the ablest advocates of the borrowing hypothesis, and hence they call to aid one or several pre-canonical Gospels which are to account for the startling discrepancies and signs of independence, whether in omissions or additions or arrangement. But these pre-canonical Gospels, with the exception of the lost Hebrew Matthew, are as fictitious as the Syro-Chaldaic Urevangelium of Eichhorn, and have been compared to the epicycles of the old astronomers, which were invented to sustain the tottering hypothesis of cycles.

As to Luke, we have shown that he departs most from the triple tradition, although he is supposed to have written last, and it is now almost universally agreed that he did not use the canonical Matthew.(24) Whether he used the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek Mark or a lost proto-Mark, is disputed, and at least very doubtful.(25) He follows a plan of his own; he ignores a whole cycle of events in Mark 6:45–8:26; he omits in the common sections the graphic touches of Mark, for which he has others equally graphic; and with a far better knowledge of Greek he has yet more Hebraisms than Mark, because he drew largely on Hebrew sources. As to Matthew, he makes the impression of primitive antiquity, and his originality and completeness have found able advocates from Augustin down to Griesbach and Keim. And as to Mark, his apparent abridgments, far from being the work of a copyist, are simply rapid statements of an original writer, with many fresh and lively details which abundantly prove his independence. On the other hand, in several narratives he is more full and minute than either Matthew or Luke.(26) His independence has been successfully proven by the most laborious and minute investigations and comparisons.(27) Hence many regard him as the primitive Evangelist made use of by both Matthew and Luke, but disagree among themselves as to whether it was the canonical Mark or a proto-Mark.(28) In either case Matthew and Luke would be guilty of plagiarism. What should we think of an historian of our day who would plunder another historian of one-third or one-half of the contents of his book without a word of acknowledgment direct or indirect? Let us give the Evangelists at least the credit of common honesty, which is the basis of all morality.

Apostolic Teaching the Primary Source of All the Synoptists.

The only certain basis for the solution of the problem is given to us in the preface of Luke. He mentions two sources of his own Gospel—but not necessarily of the two other Synoptic Gospels—namely, the oral tradition or deliverance of original "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (apostles, evangelists, and other primitive disciples), and a number of written "narratives," drawn up by "many," but evidently incomplete and fragmentary, so as to induce him to prepare, after accurate investigation, a regular history of "those matters which have been fulfilled among us." Besides this important hint, we may be aided by the well-known statements of Papias about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Greek Mark, whom he represents as the interpret

The chief and common source from which the Synoptists derived their Gospels was undoubtedly the living apostolic tradition or teaching which is mentioned by Luke in the first order. This teaching was nothing more or less than a faithful report of the words and deeds of Christ himself by honest and intelligent eye-witnesses.(29) He told his disciples to preach, not to write, the gospel, although the writing was, of course, not forbidden, but became necessary for the preservation of the gospel in its purity. They had at first only "hearers;" while the law and the prophets had readers.(30)

Among the Jews and Arabs the memory was specially trained in the accurate repetition and perpetuation of sacred words and facts.(31) The Mishna was not reduced to writing for two or three hundred years. In the East everything is more settled and stationary than in the West, and the traveller feels himself as by magic transferred back to manners and habits as well as the surroundings of apostolic and patriarchal times. The memory is strongest where it depends most on itself and least upon books.(32)

The apostolic tradition or preaching was chiefly historical, a recital of the wonderful public life of Jesus of Nazareth, and centred in the crowning facts of the crucifixion and resurrection. This is evident from the specimens of sermons in the Acts. The story was repeated in public and in private from day to day and sabbath to sabbath. The apostles and primitive evangelists adhered closely and reverently to what they saw and heard from their divine Master, and their disciples faithfully reproduced their testimony. "They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42). Reverence would forbid them to vary from it; and yet no single individual, not even Peter or John, could take in the whole fulness of Christ. One recollected this, another another part of the gospel story; one had a better memory for words, another for facts. These differences, according to varying capacities and recollection, would naturally appear, and the common tradition adapted itself, without any essential alteration, to particular classes of hearers who were first Hebrews in Palestine, then Greek Jews, proselytes, and Gentiles.

The Gospels are nothing more than comprehensive summaries of this apostolic preaching and teaching. Mark represents it in its simplest and briefest form, and agrees nearest with the preaching of Peter as far as we know it from the Acts; it is the oldest in essence, though not necessarily in composition. Matthew and Luke contain the same tradition in its expanded and more matured form, the one the Hebrew or Jewish Christian, the other the Hellenistic and Pauline type, with a corresponding selection of details. Mark gives a graphic account of the main facts of the public life of Christ "beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was received up," as they would naturally be first presented to an audience (Acts 1:22). Matthew and Luke add the history of the infancy and many discourses, facts, and details which would usually be presented in a fuller course of instruction.

Written Documents.

It is very natural that parts of the tradition were reduced to writing during the thirty years which intervened between the events and the composition of the canonical Gospels. One evangelist would record for his own use a sketch of the chief events, another the sermon on the Mount, another the parables, another the history of the crucifixion and resurrection, still another would gather from the lips of Mary the history of the infancy and the genealogies. Possibly some of the first hearers noted down certain words and events under the fresh impressions of the moment. The apostles were indeed unlearned, but not illiterate men, they could read and write and had sufficient rudimentary education for ordinary composition. These early memoranda were numerous, but have all disappeared, they were not intended for publication, or if published they were superseded by the canonical Gospels. Hence there is room here for much speculation and conjectural criticism.(33) "Many," says Luke, "have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us."(34) He cannot mean the apocryphal Gospels which were not yet written, nor the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark which would have spared him much trouble and which he would not have dared to supersede by an improved work of his own without a word of acknowledgment, but pre-canonical records, now lost, which emanated from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," yet were so fragmentary and incomplete as to justify his own attempt to furnish a more satisfactory and connected history. He had the best opportunity to gather such documents in Palestine, Antioch, Greece, and Rome. Matthew, being himself an eyewitness, and Mark, being the companion of Peter, had less need of previous documents, and could rely chiefly, oil their own memory and the living tradition in its primitive freshness. They may have written sketches or memoranda for their own use long before they completed their Gospels; for such important works cannot be prepared without long continued labor and care. The best books grow gradually and silently like trees.

Conclusion.

We conclude, then, that the Synoptists prepared their Gospels independently, during the same period (say between a.d. 60 and 69), in different places, chiefly from the living teaching of Christ and the first disciples, and partly from earlier fragmentary documents. They bear independent testimony to the truth of the gospel. Their agreement and disagreement are not the result of design, but of the unity, richness, and variety of the original story as received, understood, digested, and applied by different minds to different conditions and classes of hearers and readers.(35)

The Traditional Order.

There is no good reason to doubt that the canonical arrangement which is supported by the prevailing oldest tradition, correctly represents the order of composition.(36) Matthew, the apostle, wrote first in Aramaic and in Palestine, from his personal observation and experience with the aid of tradition; Mark next, in Rome, faithfully reproducing Peter’s preaching; Luke last, from tradition and sundry reliable but fragmentary documents. But all wrote under a higher inspiration, and are equally honest and equally trustworthy; all wrote within the lifetime of many of the primitive witnesses, before the first generation of Christians had passed away, and before there was any chance for mythical and legendary accretions. They wrote not too late to insure faithfulness, nor too early to prevent corruption. They represent not the turbid stream of apocryphal afterthoughts and fictions, but the pure fountain of historic truth.

The gospel story, being once fixed in this completed shape, remained unchanged for all time to come. Nothing was lost, nothing added. The earlier sketches or pre-canonical gospel fragments disappeared, and the four canonical records of the one gospel, no more nor less, sufficient for all purposes, monopolized the field from which neither apocryphal caricatures nor sceptical speculations have been able to drive them.

Exoteric and Esoteric Tradition.

Besides the common Galilaean tradition for the people at large which is embodied in the Synoptic Gospels, there was an esoteric tradition of Christ’s ministry in Judaea and his private relation to the select circle of the apostles and his mysterious relation to the Father. The bearer of this tradition was the beloved disciple who leaned on the beating heart of his Master and absorbed his deepest words. He treasured them up in his memory, and at last when the church was ripe for this higher revelation he embodied it in the fourth Gospel.

Notes.

The problem of the Relationship of the Synoptists was first seriously discussed by Augustin (d. 430), in his three books De Consensu Evangelistarum (Opera, Tom. III., 1041–1230, ed. Migne). He defends the order in our canon, first Matthew, last John, and the two apostolic disciples in the middle (in loco medio constituti tamquam filii amplectendi, I., 2), but wrongly makes Mark dependent on Matthew (see below, sub. I. 1). His view prevailed during the middle ages and down to the close of the eighteenth century. The verbal inspiration theory checked critical investigation.

The problem was resumed with Protestant freedom by Storr (1786), more elaborately by Eichhorn (1794), and Marsh (1803), and again by Hug (a liberal Roman Catholic scholar, 1808), Schleiermacher (1817), Gieseler (1818), De Wette (1826), Credner (1836), and others. It received a new impulse and importance by the Leben Jesu of Strauss (1836), and the Tübingen school, and has been carried forward by Baur (1847), Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann, Ewald, Meyer, Keim, Weiss, and others mentioned in the Literature (p. 577). Starting in Germany, the investigation was prosecuted also in France, Holland, England, and the United States.

It is not easy to find a way through the labyrinth of the Synoptic question, with all its by-ways and cross-ways, turns and windings, which at first make the impression:

"Mir wird von alle dem so dumm,

Als ging mir ein Mühlrad im Kopf herum."

Holtzmann gives a brief history of opinions (in his able work, Die Synopt. Evang.) down to 1863, and Hilgenfeld (Hist. Krit. Einl. in das N. T, pp. 173–210) down to 1874. Comp. also Reuss (Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T., I., §§ 165–198, 6th ed., 1887), Holtzmann, Einleitung, 351 sqq., and Weiss, Einl., 473 sqq. The following classification of theories is tolerably complete, but several overlap each other, or are combined.

I. The Inspiration hypothesis cuts the gordian knot by tracing the agreement of the Synoptists directly and solely to the Holy Spirit. But this explains nothing, and makes God responsible for all the discrepancies and possible inaccuracies of the Evangelists. No inspiration theory can stand for a moment which does not leave room for the personal agency and individual peculiarities of the sacred authors and the exercise of their natural faculties in writing. Luke expressly states in the preface his own agency in composing his Gospel and the use he made of his means of information.

The Interdependency hypothesis, or Borrowing hypothesis (Benützungshypothese) holds that one or two Evangelists borrowed from the other. This admits of as many modifications as the order in which they may be placed.

Matthew, Mark, Luke. This is the traditional order defended by Augustin, who called Mark, rather disrespectfully, a "footman and abbreviator of Matthew" (tamquam pedissequus et breviator Matthäi, II., 3), Grotius, Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Hug (1808), Hilgenfeld, Klostermann, Keil. Among English writers Townson and Greswell.

Many scholars besides those just mentioned hold to this order without admitting an interdependence, and this I think is the correct view, in connection with the tradition hypothesis. See below, sub V. and the text.

2. Matthew, Luke, Mark. So first Clement of Alexandria (Eus., H. E., VI. 14), but, without intimating a dependence of Mark except on Peter. Griesbach (in two Programs, 1789) renewed this order and made Mark an extract from both Matthew and Luke. So Theile (1825), Fritzsche (1830), Sieffert (1832), De Wette, Bleek, Anger, Strauss, Baur, Keim. The Tübingen school utilized this order for the tendency theory (see below). Keim puts Matthew a.d. 66, Luke, 90, Mark, 100.

Bleek is the most considerate advocate of this order (Einleitung in das N. T., 2d ed., 1866, 91 sqq., 245 sqq.), but Mangold changed it (in the third ed. of Bleek, 1875, pp. 388 sqq.) in favor of the priority of a proto-Mark.

3. Mark, Matthew, Luke. The originality and priority of Mark was first suggested by Koppe (1782) and Storr (1786 and 1794). The same view was renewed by Lachmann (1835), elaborately carried out by Weisse (1838, 1856; Hilgenfeld calls him the "Urheber der conservativen Markushypothese "), and still more minutely in all details by Wilke (Der Urevangelist, 1838; but he assumes numerous interpolations in the present Mark and goes back to a proto-Mark), and by B. Weiss (Das Marcusevangelium, 1872). It is maintained in various ways by Hitzig (Johannes Markus, 1843), Ewald (1850, but with various prior sources), Ritschl (1851), Reuss, Thiersch, Tobler, Réville (1862), Eichthal (1863), Schenkel, Wittichen, Holtzmann (1863), Weizsäcker (1864), Scholten (1869), Meyer (Com. on Matt., 6th ed., 1876, p. 35), Renan (Les Évangiles, 1877, pp. 113, but the Greek Mark was preceded by the lost Hebrew Matthew, p. 93 sqq.). Among English writers, James Smith, of Jordan Hill (Dissertat. on the Origin of the Gospels, etc., Edinb., 1853), G. P. Fisher (Beginnings of Christianity, New York, 1877, p. 275), and E. A. Abbott (in "Encyclop. Brit.," vol. X., 1879, art. "Gospels") adopt the same view.

The priority of Mark is now the prevailing theory among German critics, notwithstanding the protest of Baur and Keim, who had almost a personal animosity against the second Evangelist. One of the last utterances of Keim was a passionate protest against the Präkonisation des Markus (Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, pp. 28–45). But the advocates of this theory are divided on the question whether the canonical Mark or a lost proto-Mark was the primitive evangelist. The one is called the Markushypothese, the other the Urmarkushypothese. We admit the originality of Mark, but this does not necessarily imply priority of composition. Matthew and Luke have too much original matter to be dependent on Mark, and are far more valuable, as a whole, though Mark is indispensable for particulars.

4. Mark, Luke, Matthew. Herder (1796), Volkmar (1866 and 1870).

Luke, Matthew, Mark. Büsching (1776), Evanson (1792).

6. Luke, Mark, Matthew. Vogel (1804), Schneckenburger (1882).

The conflicting variety of these modifications shakes the whole borrowing theory. It makes the omissions of most important sections, as Matt. 12–17; 14:22 – 16:12; and Luke 10–18:14, and the discrepancies in the common sections entirely inexplicable. See text.

The hypothesis of a Primitive Gospel (Urevangelium) written before those of the Synoptists and used by them as their common source, but now lost.

A lost Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Gospel of official character, written very early, about 35, in Palestine by the apostles as a manual for the travelling preachers. This is the famous Urevangeliumshypothese of the learned Professor Eichhorn (1794, 1804, 1820), adopted and modified by Bishop Herbert Marsh (1803), Gratz (1809), and Bertholdt (who, as Baur says, was devoted to it with "carnal self-security").

But there is no trace of such an important Gospel, either Hebrew or Greek. Luke knows nothing about it, although he speaks of several attempts to write portions of the history. To carry out his hypothesis, Eichhorn was forced to assume four altered copies or recensions of the original document, and afterwards he added also Greek recensions. Marsh, outgermanizing the German critic, increased the number of recensions to eight, including a Greek translation of the Hebrew original. Thus a new recension might be invented for every new set of facts ad infinitum. If the original Gospel was an apostolic composition, it needed no alterations and would have been preserved; or if it was so defective, it was of small account and unfit to be used as a basis of the canonical Gospels. Eichhorn’s hypothesis is now generally abandoned, but in modified shape it has been renewed by Ewald and others. See below.

The Gospel "according to the Hebrews," of which some fragments still remain. Lessing (1784, in a book published three years after his death), Semler (who, however, changed his view repeatedly), Weber (1791), Paulus (1799). But this was a heretical or Ebionitic corruption of Matthew, and the remaining fragments differ widely from the canonical Gospels.
The Hebrew Matthew (Urmatthäus). It is supposed in this case that the famous Logia, which Matthew is reported by Papias to have written in Hebrew, consisted not only of a collection of discourses of our Lord (as Schleiermacher, Ewald, Reuss, I., 183, explained the term), but also of his deeds: "things said and done." But in any case the Hebrew Matthew is lost and cannot form a safe basis for conclusions. Hug and Roberts deny that it ever existed. See next section.
The canonical Mark.
A pre-canonical proto-Mark (Urmarkus). The last two hypotheses have already been mentioned under the second general head (II. 3).

The theory of a number of fragmentary documents (the Diegesentheorie), or different recensions. It is based on the remark of Luke that "many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative (dihvghsin concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us" (Luke 1:1). Schleiermacher (1817) assumed a large number of such written documents, or detached narratives, and dealt very freely with the Synoptists, resting his faith chiefly on John.

Ewald (1850) independently carried out a similar view in fierce opposition to the "beastly wildness" of the Tübingen school. He informs us with his usual oracular self-assurance that Philip, the evangelist (Acts 8), first wrote a historical sketch in Hebrew, and then Matthew a collection of discourses (the lovgia of Papias), also in Hebrew, of which several Greek translations were made; that Mark was the third, Matthew the fifth, and Luke the ninth in this series of Gospels, representing the "Höhebilder, die himmlische Fortbewegung der Geschichte," which at last assumed their most perfect shape in John.

Köstlin, Wittichen, and Scholten likewise assume a number of precanonical Gospels which exist only in their critical fancy.

Renan (Les Evang., Introd., p. vi.) distinguishes three sets of Gospels: (1) original Gospels of the first hand, taken from the oral tradition without a previous written text: the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek proto-Mark; (2) Gospels partly original and partly second-handed: our canonical Gospels falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; (3) Gospels of the second and third hand: Marcion’s and the Apocryphal Gospels.

V. The theory of a common Oral Tradition (Traditionshypothese). Herder (1796), Gieseler (who first fully developed it, 1818), Schulz (1829), Credner, Lange, Ebrard (1868), Thiersch (1845, 1852), Norton, Alford, Westcott (1860, 6th ed., 1881), Godet (1873), Keil (1877), and others. The Gospel story by constant repetition assumed or rather had from the beginning a uniform shape, even in minute particulars, especially in the words of Christ. True, as far as it goes, but must be supplemented, at least in the case of Luke, by pre-canonical, fragmentary documents or memoranda (dihghvsei"). See the text.

The Tendency hypothesis (Tendenzhypothese), or the theory of Doctrinal Adaptation. Baur (1847) and the Tübingen school (Schwegler, Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin), followed in England by Samuel Davidson (in his Introd. to the New Test., 1868, revised ed., 1882). Each Evangelist modified the Gospel history in the interest of the religious school or party to which he belonged. Matthew represents the Jewish Christian, Luke the Pauline or Gentile Christian tendency, Mark obliterates the difference, or prepares the way from the first to the second. Every individual trait or characteristic feature of a Gospel is connected with the dogmatic antithesis between Petrinism and Paulinism. Baur regarded Matthew as relatively the most primitive and credible Gospel, but it is itself a free reproduction of a still older Aramaic Gospel "according to the Hebrews." He was followed by an Urlukas, a purely Pauline tendency Gospel. Mark is compiled from our Matthew and the Urlukas in the interest of neutrality. Then followed the present Luke with an irenical Catholic tendency. Baur overstrained the difference between Petrinism and Paulinism far beyond the limits of historic truth, transformed the sacred writers into a set of partisans and fighting theologians after modem fashion, set aside the fourth Gospel as a purely ideal fiction, and put all the Gospels about seventy years too far down (130–170), when they were already generally used in the Christian church—according to the concurrent testimonies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Volkmar went even beyond Baur in reckless radicalism, although he qualified it in other respects, as regards the priority of Mark, the originality of Luke (as compared with Marcion), and the date of Matthew which he put back to about 110. See a summary of his views in Hilgenfeld’s Einleitung, pp. 199–202. But Ritschl and Hilgenfeld have considerably moderated the Tübingen extravagancies. Ritschl puts Mark first, and herein Volkmar agrees. Hilgenfeld assigns the composition of Matthew to the sixth decade of the first century (though he thinks it was somewhat changed soon after the destruction of Jerusalem), then followed Mark and paved the way from Petrinism to Paulinism, and Luke wrote last before the close of the first century. He ably maintained his theory in a five years’ conflict with the Tübingen master (1850–1855) and reasserts it in his Einleitung (1875). So he brings us back to the traditional order. As to the time of composition, the internal evidence strongly supports the historical tradition that the Synoptists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem.

§ 80. Matthew.

Critical.

Bernh. Weiss: Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklärt. Halle, 1876. Exceedingly elaborate.

Edw. Byron Nicholson: The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Its Fragments translated and annotated. Lond., 1879.

Exegetical

Commentaries on Matthew by Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, Melanchthon (1523), Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford, Wordsworth, Schegg (R. Cath., 1856–58, 3 vols.), J. A. Alexander, Lange (trsl. and enlarged by Schaff, N. Y., 1864, etc.), James Morison (of Glasgow, Lond., 1870), Meyer, (6th ed., 1876), Wichelhaus (Halle, 1876), Keil (Leipz., 1877), Plumptre (Lond., 1878), Carr (Cambr., 1879), Nicholson (Lond., 1881), Schaff (N. Y., 1882).

Life of Matthew.

Matthew,(37) formerly called Levi, one of the twelve apostles, was originally a publican or taxgatherer(38) at Capernaum, and hence well acquainted with Greek and Hebrew in bilingual Galilee, and accustomed to keep accounts. This occupation prepared him for writing a Gospel in topical order in both languages. In the three Synoptic lists of the apostles he is associated with Thomas, and forms with him the fourth pair; in Mark and Luke he precedes Thomas, in his own Gospel he is placed after him (perhaps from modesty).(39) Hence the conjecture that he was a twin brother of Thomas (Didymus, i.e., Twin), or associated with him in work. Thomas was an honest and earnest doubter, of a melancholy disposition, yet fully convinced at last when he saw the risen Lord; Matthew was a strong and resolute believer.

Of his apostolic labors we have no certain information. Palestine, Ethiopia, Macedonia, the country of the Euphrates, Persia, and Media are variously assigned to him as missionary fields. He died a natural death according to the oldest tradition, while later accounts make him a martyr.(40)

The first Gospel is his imperishable work, well worthy a long life, yea many lives. Matthew the publican occupies as to time the first place in the order of the Evangelists, as Mary Magdalene, from whom Christ expelled many demons, first proclaimed the glad tidings of the resurrection. Not that it is on that account the best or most important—the best comes last,—but it naturally precedes the other, as the basis precedes the superstructure.(41)

In his written Gospel he still fulfils the great commission to bring all nations to the school of Christ (Matt. 28:19).

The scanty information of the person and life of Matthew in connection with his Gospel suggests the following probable inferences:

Matthew was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet comparatively liberal, being a publican who came in frequent contact with merchants from Damascus. This occupation was indeed disreputable in the eyes of the Jews, and scarcely consistent with the national Messianic aspirations; but Capernaum belonged to the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, and the Herodian family, which, with all its subserviency to heathen Rome, was yet to a certain extent identified with the Jewish nation.
He was a man of some means and good social position. His office was lucrative, he owned a house, and gave a farewell banquet to "a great multitude" of his old associates, at which Jesus presided.(42) It was at the same time his farewell to the world, its wealth, its pleasures and honors. "We may conceive what a joyous banquet that was for Matthew, when he marked the words and acts of Jesus, and stored within his memory the scene and the conversation which he was inspired to write according to his clerkly ability for the instruction of the church in all after ages."(43) It was on that occasion that Jesus spoke that word which was especially applicable to Matthew and especially offensive to the Pharisees present: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." It is remarkable that the first post-apostolic quotation from the Gospel of Matthew is this very passage, and one similar to it (see below).
He was a man of decision of character and capable of great sacrifice to his conviction. When called, while sitting in Oriental fashion at his tollbooth, to follow Jesus, he "forsook all, rose up, and followed Him," whom he at once recognized and trusted as the true king of Israel.(44) No one can do more than leave his "all," no matter how much or how little this may be; and no one can do better than to "follow Christ."

Character and Aim of the Gospel.

The first Gospel makes the impression of primitive antiquity. The city of Jerusalem, the temple, the priesthood and sacrifices, the entire religious and political fabric of Judaism are supposed to be still standing, but with an intimation of their speedy downfall.(45) It alone reports the words of Christ that he came not to destroy but to fulfil the law and the prophets, and that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.(46) Hence the best critics put the composition several years before the destruction of Jerusalem.(47)

Matthew’s Gospel was evidently written for Hebrews, and Hebrew Christians with the aim to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, the last and greatest prophet, priest, and king of Israel. It presupposes a knowledge of Jewish customs and Palestinian localities (which are explained in other Gospels).(48) It is the connecting link between the Old and the New Covenant. It is, as has been well said,(49) "the ultimatum of Jehovah to his ancient people: Believe, or prepare to perish! Recognize Jesus as the Messiah, or await Him as your Judge!" Hence he so often points out the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy in the evangelical history with his peculiar formula: "that it might be fulfilled," or "then was fulfilled." (50)

In accordance with this plan, Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus, showing him to be the son and heir of David the king, and of Abraham the father, of the Jewish race, to whom the promises were given. The wise men of the East come from a distance to adore the new-born king of the Jews. The dark suspicion and jealousy of Herod is roused, and foreshadows the future persecution of the Messiah. The flight to Egypt and the return from that land both of refuge and bondage are a fulfilment of the typical history of Israel. John the Baptist completes the mission of prophecy in preparing the way for Christ. After the Messianic inauguration and trial Jesus opens his public ministry with the Sermon on the Mount, which is the counterpart of the Sinaitic legislation, and contains the fundamental law of his kingdom. The key-note of this sermon and of the whole Gospel is that Christ came to fulfil the law and the prophets, which implies both the harmony of the two religions and the transcendent superiority of Christianity. His mission assumes an organized institutional form in the kingdom of heaven which he came to establish in the world. Matthew uses this term (hJ basileiva tw'n oujranw'n) no less than thirty-two times, while the other Evangelists and Paul speak of the "kingdom of God" (hJ basileiva tou' qeou'). No other Evangelist has so fully developed the idea that Christ and his kingdom are the fulfilment of all the hopes and aspirations of Israel, and so vividly set forth the awful solemnity of the crisis at this turning point in its history.

But while Matthew wrote from the Jewish Christian point of view, he is far from being Judaizing or contracted. He takes the widest range of prophecy. He is the most national and yet the most universal, the most retrospective and yet the most prospective, of Evangelists. At the very cradle of the infant Jesus he introduces the adoring Magi from the far East, as the forerunners of a multitude of believing Gentiles who "shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven;" while "the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness." The heathen centurion, and the heathen woman of Canaan exhibit a faith the like of which Jesus did not find in Israel. The Messiah is rejected and persecuted by his own people in Galilee and Judaea. He upbraids Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, wherein his mighty works were done, because they repented not; He sheds tears over Jerusalem because she would not come to Him; He pronounces his woe over the Jewish hierarchy, and utters the fearful prophecies of the destruction of the theocracy. All this is most fully recorded by Matthew, and he most appropriately and sublimely concludes with the command of the universal evangelization of all nations, and the promise of the unbroken presence of Christ with his people to the end of the world.(51)

Topical Arrangement.

The mode of arrangement is clear and orderly. It is topical rather than chronological. It far surpasses Mark and Luke in the fulness of the discourses of Christ, while it has to be supplemented from them in regard to the succession of events. Matthew groups together the kindred words and works with special reference to Christ’s teaching; hence it was properly called by Papias a collection of the Oracles of the Lord. It is emphatically the didactic Gospel.

The first didactic group is the Sermon on the Mount of Beatitudes, which contains the legislation of the kingdom of Christ and an invitation to the whole people to enter, holding out the richest promises to the poor in spirit and the pure in heart (Matt. 5–7. The second group is the instruction to the disciples in their missionary work (Matt. 10). The third is the collection of the parables on the kingdom of God, illustrating its growth, conflict, value, and consummation (Matt. 13). The fourth, the denunciation of the Pharisees (Matt. 23), and the fifth, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world (Matt. 24 and 25).

Between these chief groups are inserted smaller discourses of Christ, on his relation to John the Baptist (11:1–19); the woe on the unrepenting cities of Galilee (11:20–24); the thanksgiving for the revelation to those of a childlike spirit (11:25–27); the invitation to the weary and heavy laden (11:28–30); on the observance of the Sabbath and warning to the Pharisees who were on the way to commit the unpardonable sin by tracing his miracles to Satanic powers (Matt. 12); the attack on the traditions of the elders and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matt. 15 and 16); the prophecy of the founding of the church after the great confession of Peter, with the prediction of his passion as the way to victory (Matt. 16); the discourse on the little children with their lesson of simplicity and humility against the temptations of hierarchial pride; the duty of forgiveness in the kingdom and the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18); the discourse about divorce, against the Pharisees; the blessing of little children; the warning against the danger of riches; the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard and the nature of the future rewards (Matt. 19 and 20); the victorious replies of the Lord to the tempting questions of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 22).

These discourses are connected with narratives of the great miracles of Christ and the events in his life. The miracles are likewise grouped together (as in Matt. 8–9), or briefly summed up (as in 4:23–25). The transfiguration (Matt. 17) forms the turning-point between the active and the passive life; it was a manifestation of heaven on earth, an anticipation of Christ’s future glory, a pledge of the resurrection, and it fortified Jesus and his three chosen disciples for the coming crisis, which culminated in the crucifixion and ended in the resurrection.(52)

Peculiar Sections.

Matthew has a number of original sections:

Ten Discourses of our Lord, namely, the greater part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7); the thanksgiving for the revelation to babes (11:25–27); the touching invitation to the heavy laden (11:28–30), which is equal to anything in John; the warning against idle words (12:36, 37); the blessing pronounced upon Peter and the prophecy of founding the church (16:17–19); the greater part of the discourse on humility and forgiveness (Matt. 18); the rejection of the Jews (21:43); the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23); the description of the final judgment (25:31–46); the great commission and the promise of Christ’s presence to the end of time (28:18–20).
Ten Parables: the tares; the hidden treasure; the pearl of great price; the draw-net (13:24–50); the unmerciful servant (18:23–35); the laborers in the vineyard (20:1–16); the two sons (21:28–32); the marriage of the king’s son (22: 1–14); the ten virgins (25:1–13); the talents (25:14–30).
Two Miracles: the cure of two blind men (9:27–31); the stater in the fish’s mouth (17:24–27).
Facts and Incidents: the adoration of the Magi; the massacre of the innocents; the flight into Egypt; the return from Egypt to Nazareth (all in Matt. 2); the coming of the Pharisees and Sadducees to John’s baptism (3:7); Peter’s attempt to walk on the sea (14:28–31); the payment of the temple tax (17:24–27); the bargain of Judas, his remorse, and suicide (26:14–16; 27:3–10); the dream of Pilate’s wife (27:19); the appearance of departed saints in Jerusalem (27:52); the watch at the sepulchre (27:62–66); the lie of the Sanhedrin and the bribing of the soldiers (28:11–15); the earthquake on the resurrection morning (28:2, a repetition of the shock described in 27:51, and connected with the rolling away of the stone from the sepulchre).

The Style.

The Style of Matthew is simple, unadorned, calm, dignified, even majestic; less vivid and picturesque than that of Mark; more even and uniform than Luke’s, because not dependent on written sources. He is Hebraizing, but less so than Mark, and not so much as Luke 1–2. He omits some minor details which escaped his observation, but which Mark heard from Peter, and which Luke learned from eye-witnesses or found in his fragmentary documents. Among his peculiar expressions, besides the constant use of "kingdom of heaven," is the designation of God as "our heavenly Father," and of Jerusalem as "the holy city" and "the city of the Great King." In the fulness of the teaching of Christ he surpasses all except John. Nothing can be more solemn and impressive than his reports of those words of life and power, which will outlast heaven and earth (24:34). Sentence follows sentence with overwhelming force, like a succession of lightning flashes from the upper world.(53)

Patristic Notices of Matthew.

The first Gospel was well known to the author of the "Didache of the Apostles," who wrote between 80 and 100, and made large use of it, especially the Sermon on the Mount.(54)

The next clear allusion to this Gospel is made in the Epistle of Barnabas, who quotes two passages from the Greek Matthew, one from 22:14: "Many are called, but few chosen," with the significant formula used only of inspired writings, "It is written."(55) This shows clearly that early in the second century, if not before, it was an acknowledged authority in the church. The Gospel of John also indirectly presupposes, by its numerous emissions, the existence of all the Synoptical Gospels.

The Hebrew Matthew.

Next we hear of a Hebrew Matthew from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp."(56) He collected from apostles and their disciples a variety of apostolic traditions in his "Exposition of Oracles of the Lord," in five books (logivwn kuriakw'n ejxhvghsi"¼. In a fragment of this lost work preserved by Eusebius, he says distinctly that "Matthew composed the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone interpreted them as best he could."(57)

Unfortunately the Hebrew Matthew, if it ever existed, has disappeared, and consequently there is much difference of opinion about this famous passage, both as regards the proper meaning of "oracles" (logiva) and the truth of the whole report.

The "oracles" are understood by some to mean only the discourses of our Lord;(58) by others to include also the narrative portions.(59) But in any case the Hebrew Matthew must have been chiefly an orderly collection of discourses. This agrees best with the natural and usual meaning of Logia, and the actual preponderance of the doctrinal element in our canonical Matthew) as compared with our Mark. A parte potiori fit denominatio.
The report of a Hebrew original has been set aside altogether as a sheer mistake of Papias, who confounded it with the Ebionite "Gospel according to the Hebrews," known to us from a number of fragments.(60) It is said that Papias was a credulous and weak-minded, though pious man.(61) But this does not impair his veracity or invalidate a simple historical notice. It is also said that the universal spread of the Greek language made a Hebrew Gospel superfluous. But the Aramaic was still the vernacular and prevailing language in Palestine (comp. Acts 21:40; 22:2) and in the countries of the Euphrates.

There is an intrinsic probability of a Hebrew Gospel for the early stage of Christianity. And the existence of a Hebrew Matthew rests by no means merely on Papias. It is confirmed by the independent testimonies of most respectable fathers, as Irenaeus,(62) Pantaenus,(63) Origen, (64) Eusebius,(65) Cyril of Jerusalem,(66) Epiphanius,(67) and Jerome.(68)

This Hebrew Matthew must not be identified with the Judaizing "Gospel according to the Hebrews," the best among the apocryphal Gospels, of which in all thirty-three fragments remain. Jerome and other fathers clearly distinguish the two. The latter was probably an adaptation of the former to the use of the Ebionites and Nazarenes.(69) Truth always precedes heresy, as the genuine coin precedes the counterfeit, and the real portrait the caricature. Cureton and Tregelles maintain that the Curetonian Syriac fragment is virtually a translation of the Hebrew Matthew, and antedates the Peshito version. But Ewald has proven that it is derived from our Greek Matthew.(70)

Papias says that everybody "interpreted" the Hebrew Matthew as well as he could. He refers no doubt to the use of the Gospel in public discourses before Greek hearers, not to a number of written translations of which we know nothing. The past tense (hjrmhvneuse) moreover seems to imply that such necessity existed no longer at the time when he wrote; in other words, that the authentic Greek Matthew had since appeared and superseded the Aramaic predecessor which was probably less complete.(71) Papias accordingly is an indirect witness of the Greek Matthew in his own age; that is, the early part of the second century (about a.d. 130). At all events the Greek Matthew was in public use even before that time, as is evident from the, quotations in the Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas (which were written before 120, probably before 100).

The Greek Matthew.

The Greek Matthew, as we have it now, is not a close translation from the Hebrew and bears the marks of an original composition. This appears from genuine Greek words and phrases to which there is no parallel in Hebrew, as the truly classical "Those wretches he will wretchedly destroy,"(72) and from the discrimination in Old Testament quotations which are freely taken from the Septuagint in the course of the narrative, but conformed to the Hebrew when they convey Messianic prophecies, and are introduced by the solemn formula: "that there might be fulfilled," or "then was fulfilled."(73)

If then we credit the well nigh unanimous tradition of the ancient church concerning a prior Hebrew Matthew, we must either ascribe the Greek Matthew to some unknown translator who took certain liberties with the original,(74) or, what seems most probable, we must assume that Matthew himself at different periods of his life wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew in Palestine, and afterward in Greek.(75) In doing so, he would not literally translate his own book, but like other historians freely reproduce and improve it. Josephus did the same with his history of the Jewish war, of which only the Greek remains. When the Greek Matthew once was current in the church, it naturally superseded the Hebrew, especially if it was more complete.

Objections are raised to Matthew’s authorship of the first canonical Gospel, from real or supposed inaccuracies in the narrative, but they are at best very trifling and easily explained by the fact that Matthew paid most attention to the words of Christ, and probably had a better memory for thoughts than for facts.(76)

But whatever be the view we take of the precise origin of the first canonical Gospel, it was universally received in the ancient church as the work of Matthew. It was our Matthew who is often, though freely, quoted by Justin Martyr as early as a.d. 146 among the "Gospel Memoirs;" it was one of the four Gospels of which his pupil Tatian compiled a connected "Diatessaron;" and it was the only Matthew used by Irenaeus and all the fathers that follow.

§ 81. Mark.

Commentaries.

George Petter (the largest Com. on M., London, 1661, 2 vols. fol.); C. Fr. A. Fritzsche (Evangelium Marci, Lips., 1830); A. Klostermann (Das Marcusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evang. Gesch., Göttingen, 1867); B. Weiss (Das Marcusevangelium und seine synopt. Parallelen, Berlin, 1872); Meyer (6th ed. by Weiss, Gött., 1878); Joseph A. Alexander (New York, 1858, and London, 1866); Harvey Goodwin (London, 1860); John H. Godwin (London, 1869); James Morison (Mark’s Memoir of Jesus Christ, London and Glasgow, 1873, second ed., 1876, third ed., 1881, one of the very best Com., learned, reverential, and sensible); C. F. Maclear (Cambridge, 1877); Canon Cook (London, 1878); Edwin W. Rich (Philad., 1881); Matthew B. Riddle (New York, 1881).

Life of Mark

The second Evangelist combines in his name, as well as in his mission, the Hebrew and the Roman, and is a connecting link between Peter and Paul, but more especially a pupil and companion of the former, so that his Gospel may properly be called the Gospel of Peter. His original name was John or Johanan (i.e., Jehovah is gracious, Gotthold) his surname was Mark (i.e., Mallet).(77) The surname supplanted the Hebrew name in his later life, as Peter supplanted Simon, and Paul supplanted Saul. The change marked the transition of Christianity from the Jews to the Gentiles. He is frequently mentioned in the Acts and the Epistles.(78)

He was the son of a certain Mary who lived at Jerusalem and offered her house, at great risk no doubt in that critical period of persecution, to the Christian disciples for devotional meetings. Peter repaired to that house after his deliverance from prison (a.d. 44). This accounts for the close intimacy of Mark with Peter; he was probably converted through him, and hence called his spiritual "son" (1 Pet. 5:13).(79) He may have had a superficial acquaintance with Christ; for he is probably identical with that unnamed "young man" who, according to his own report, left his "linen cloth and fled naked" from Gethsemane in the night of betrayal (Mark 14:51). He would hardly have mentioned such a trifling incident, unless it had a special significance for him as the turning-point in his life. Lange ingeniously conjectures that his mother owned the garden of Gethsemane or a house close by.

Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas as their minister (uJphrevth") on their first great missionary journey; but left them half-way, being discouraged, it seems, by the arduous work, and returned to his mother in Jerusalem. For this reason Paul refused to take him on his next tour, while Barnabas was willing to overlook his temporary weakness (Acts 15:38). There was a "sharp contention" on that occasion between these good men, probably in connection with the more serious collision between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11 sqq.). Paul was moved by a stern sense of duty; Barnabas by a kindly feeling for his cousin.(80) But the alienation was only temporary. For about ten years afterwards (63) Paul speaks of Mark at Rome as one of his few "fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God," who had been "a comfort" to him in his imprisonment; and he commends him to the brethren in Asia Minor on his intended visit (Col. 4:10, 11; Philem. 24). In his last Epistle he charges Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome on the ground that he was "useful to him for ministering" (2 Tim. 4:11). We find him again in company with Peter at "Baby]on," whether that be on the Euphrates, or, more probably, at Rome (1 Pet. 5:3).

These are the last notices of him in the New Testament. The tradition of the church adds two important facts, that he wrote his Gospel in Rome as the interpreter of Peter, and that afterwards he founded the church of Alexandria. The Coptic patriarch claims to be his successor. The legends of his martyrdom in the eighth year of Nero (this date is given by Jerome) are worthless. In 827 his relics were removed from Egypt to Venice, which built him a magnificent five-domed cathedral on the Place of St. Mark, near the Doge’s palace, and chose him with his symbol, the Lion, for the patron saint of the republic.

His Relation to Peter.

Though not an apostle, Mark had the best opportunity in his mother’s house and his personal connection with Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and other prominent disciples for gathering the most authentic information concerning the gospel history.

The earliest notice of his Gospel we have from Papias of Hierapolis in the first half of the second century. He reports among the primitive traditions which he collected, that "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter (eJrmhneuth;" Pevtrou genovmeno"¼, wrote down accurately »ajkribw'" e[grayen) whatever he remembered,(81) without, however, recording in order (ta;xei) what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, [he followed] Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but not in the way of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses.(82) So then Mark committed no error in thus writing down such details as he remembered; for he made it his one forethought not to omit or to misrepresent any details that he had heard."(83)

In what sense was Mark an "interpreter" of Peter? Not as the translator of a written Aramaic Gospel of Peter into the Greek, for of such an Aramaic original there is no trace, and Peter (to judge from his Epistles) wrote better Greek; nor as the translator of his discourses into Latin, for we know not whether he understood that language, and it was scarcely needed even in Rome among Jews and Orientals who spoke Greek;(84) nor in the wider sense, as a mere clerk or amanuensis, who wrote down what Peter dictated; but as the literary editor and publisher of the oral Gospel of his spiritual father and teacher. So Mercury was called the interpreter of the gods, because he communicated to mortals the messages of the gods. It is quite probable, however, that Peter sketched down some of the chief events under the first impression, in his vernacular tongue, and that such brief memoirs, if they existed, would naturally be made use of by Mark.(85)

We learn, then, from Papias that Mark wrote his Gospel from the personal reminiscences of Peter’s discourses, which were adapted to the immediate wants of his hearers; that it was not complete (especially in the didactic part, as compared with Matthew or John), nor strictly chronological.

Clement of Alexandria informs us that the people of Rome were so much pleased with the preaching of Peter that they requested Mark, his attendant, to put it down in writing, which Peter neither encouraged nor hindered. Other ancient fathers emphasize the close intimacy of Mark with Peter, and call his Gospel the Gospel of Peter.(86)

The Gospel.

This tradition is confirmed by the book: it is derived from the apostolic preaching of Peter, but is the briefest and so far the least complete of all the Gospels, yet replete with significant details. It reflects the sanguine and impulsive temperament, rapid movement, and vigorous action of Peter. In this respect its favorite particle "straightway" is exceedingly characteristic. The break-down of Mark in Pamphylia, which provoked the censure of Paul, has a parallel in the denial and inconsistency of Peter; but, like him, he soon rallied, was ready to accompany Paul on his next mission, and persevered faithfully to the end.

He betrays, by omissions and additions, the direct influence of Peter. He informs us that the house of Peter was "the house of Simon and Andrew" (Mark 1:29). He begins the public ministry of Christ with the calling of these two brothers (1:16) and ends the undoubted part of the Gospel with a message to Peter (16:7), and the supplement almost in the very words of Peter.(87) He tells us that Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration, when he proposed to erect three tabernacles, "knew not what to say" (9:6). He gives the most minute account of Peter’s denial, and—alone among the Evangelists—records the fact that he warmed himself "in the light" of the fire so that he could be distinctly seen (14:54), and that the cock crew twice, giving him a second warning (14:72). No one would be more likely to remember and report the fact as a stimulus to humility and gratitude than Peter himself.

On the other hand, Mark omits the laudatory words of Jesus to Peter: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church;" while yet he records the succeeding rebuke: "Get thee behind me, Satan."(88) The humility of the apostle, who himself warns so earnestly against the hierarchical abuse of the former passage, offers the most natural explanation of this conspicuous omission. "It is likely," says Eusebius, "that Peter maintained silence on these points; hence the silence of Mark."(89)

Character and Aim of Mark.

The second Gospel was—according to the unanimous voice of the ancient church, which is sustained by internal evidence—written at Rome and primarily for Roman readers, probably before the death of Peter, at all events before the destruction of Jerusalem.(90)

It is a faithful record of Peter’s preaching, which Mark must have heard again and again. It is an historical sermon on the text of Peter when addressing the Roman soldier Cornelius: "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."(91) It omits the history of the infancy, and rushes at once into the public ministry of our Lord, beginning, like Peter, with the baptism of John, and ending with the ascension. It represents Christ in the fulness of his living energy, as the Son of God and the mighty wonder-worker who excited amazement and carried the people irresistibly before him as a spiritual conqueror. This aspect would most impress the martial mind of the Romans, who were born to conquer and to rule. The teacher is lost in the founder of a kingdom. The heroic element prevails over the prophetic. The victory over Satanic powers in the healing of demoniacs is made very prominent. It is the gospel of divine force manifested in Christ. The symbol of the lion is not inappropriate to the Evangelist who describes Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Judah.(92)

Mark gives us a Gospel of facts, while Matthew’s is a Gospel of divine oracles. He reports few discourses, but many miracles. He unrolls the short public life of our Lord in a series of brief life-pictures in rapid succession. He takes no time to explain and to reveal the inside. He dwells on the outward aspect of that wonderful personality as it struck the multitude. Compared with Matthew and especially with John, he is superficial, but not on that account incorrect or less useful and necessary. He takes the theocratic view of Christ, like Matthew; while Luke and John take the universal view; but while Matthew for his Jewish readers begins with the descent of Christ from David the King and often directs attention to the fulfilment of prophecy, Mark, writing for Gentiles, begins with "the Son of God" in his independent personality.(93) He rarely quotes prophecy; but, on the other hand, he translates for his Roman readers Aramaic words and Jewish customs and opinions.(94) He exhibits the Son of God in his mighty power and expects the reader to submit to his authority.

Two miracles are peculiar to him, the healing of the deaf and dumb man in Decapolis, which astonished the people "beyond measure" and made them exclaim: "He hath done all things well: he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak" (Mark 7:31–37). The other miracle is a remarkable specimen of a gradual cure, the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida, who upon the first touch of Christ saw the men around him walking, but indistinctly as trees, and then after the second laying on of hands upon his eyes "saw all things clearly" (8:22–26). He omits important parables, but alone gives the interesting parable of the seed growing secretly and bearing first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear (4:26–29).

It is an interesting feature to which Dr. Lange first has directed attention, that Mark lays emphasis on the periods of pause and rest which "rhythmically intervene between the several great victories achieved by Christ." He came out from his obscure abode in Nazareth; each fresh advance in his public life is preceded by a retirement, and each retirement is followed by a new and greater victory. The contrast between the contemplative rest and the vigorous action is striking and explains the overpowering effect by revealing its secret spring in the communion with God and with himself. Thus we have after his baptism a retirement to the wilderness in Judaea before he preached in Galilee (1:12); a retirement to the ship (3:7); to the desert on the eastern shore of the lake of Galilee (6:31); to a mountain (6:46); to the border land of Tyre and Sidon (7:24); to Decapolis (7:31); to a high mountain (9:2); to Bethany (11:1); to Gethsemane (14:34); his rest in the grave before the resurrection; and his withdrawal from the world and his reappearance in the victories of the gospel preached by his disciples. "The ascension of the Lord forms his last withdrawal, which is to be followed by his final onset and absolute victory."(95)

Doctrinal Position.

Mark has no distinct doctrinal type, but is catholic, irenic, unsectarian, and neutral as regards the party questions within the apostolic church. But this is not the result of calculation or of a tendency to obliterate and conciliate existing differences.(96) Mark simply represents the primitive form of Christianity itself before the circumcision controversy broke out which occasioned the apostolic conference at Jerusalem twenty years after the founding of the church. His Gospel is Petrine without being anti-Pauline, and Pauline without being anti-Petrine. Its doctrinal tone is the same as that of the sermons of Peter in the Acts. It is thoroughly practical. Its preaches Christianity, not theology.

The same is true of the other Gospels, with this difference, however, that Matthew has a special reference to Jewish, Luke to Gentile readers, and that both make their selection accordingly under the guidance of the Spirit and in accordance with their peculiar charisma and aim, but without altering or coloring the facts. Mark stands properly between them just as Peter stood between James and Paul.

The Style.

The style of Mark is unclassical, inelegant, provincial, homely, poor and repetitious in vocabulary, but original, fresh, and picturesque, and enlivened by interesting touches and flickers..(97)

He was a stranger to the arts of rhetoric and unskilled in literary composition, but an attentive listener, a close observer, and faithful recorder of actual events. He is strongly Hebraizing, and uses often the Hebrew and, but seldom the argumentative for. He inserts a number of Latin words, though most of these occur also in Matthew and Luke, and in the Talmud.(98) He uses the particle "forthwith" or "straightway" more frequently than all the other Evangelists combined.(99) It is his pet word, and well expresses his haste and rapid transition from event to event, from conquest to conquest. He quotes names and phrases in the original Aramaic, as "Abba," "Boanerges," "Talitha kum," "Corban," "Ephphathah," and "Eloi, Eloi," with a Greek translation.(100) He is fond of the historical present,(101) of the direct instead of the indirect mode of speech,(102) of pictorical participles,(103) and of affectionate diminutives.(104) He observes time and place of important events.(105) He has a number of peculiar expressions not found elsewhere in the New Testament.(106)

Characteristic Details.

Mark inserts many delicate tints and interesting incidents of persons and events which he must have heard from primitive witnesses. They are not the touches of fancy or the reflections of an historian, but the reminiscences of the first impressions. They occur in every chapter. He makes some little contribution to almost every narrative he has in common with Matthew and Luke. He notices the overpowering impression of awe and wonder, joy and delight, which the words and miracles of Jesus and his very appearance made upon the people and the disciples;(107) the actions of the multitude as they were rushing and thronging and pressing upon Him that He might touch and heal them, so that there was scarcely standing room, or time to eat.(108) On one occasion his kinsmen were about forcibly to remove Him from the throng. He directs attention to the human emotions and passions of our Lord, how he was stirred by pity, wonder, grief, anger and indignation.(109) He notices his attitudes, looks and gestures,(110) his sleep and hunger.(111)

He informs us that Jesus, "looking upon" the rich young ruler, "loved him," and that the ruler’s "countenance fell" when he was told to sell all he had and to follow Jesus. Mark, or Peter rather, must have watched the eye of our Lord and read in his face the expression of special interest in that man who notwithstanding his self-righteousness and worldliness had some lovely qualities and was not very far from the kingdom.(112)

The cure of the demoniac and epileptic at the foot of the mount of transfiguration is narrated with greater circumstantiality and dramatic vividness by Mark than by the other Synoptists. He supplies the touching conversation of Jesus with the father of the sufferer, which drew out his weak and struggling faith with the earnest prayer for strong and victorious faith: "I believe; help Thou mine unbelief."(113) We can imagine how eagerly Peter, the confessor, caught this prayer, and how often he repeated it in his preaching, mindful of his own weakness and trials.

All the Synoptists relate on two distinct occasions Christ’s love for little children, but Mark alone tells us that He "took little children into his arms, and laid his hands upon them."(114)

Many minor details not found in the other Gospels, however insignificant in themselves, are yet most significant as marks of the autopticity of the narrator (Peter). Such are the notices that Jesus entered the house of "Simon and Andrew, with James and John" (Mark 1:29); that the Pharisees took counsel "with the Herodians" (3:6); that the raiment of Jesus at the transfiguration became exceeding white as snow "so as no fuller on earth can whiten them" (9:3); that blind Bartimaeus when called, "casting away his garment, leaped up" (10:50), and came to Jesus; that "Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately" on the Mount of Olives about the coming events (13:3); that the five thousand sat down "in ranks, by hundreds and fifties" (6:40); that the Simon who carried the cross of Christ (15:21) was a "Cyrenian" and "the father of Alexander and Rufus" (no doubt, two well-known disciples, perhaps at Rome, comp. Rom. 16:13).

We may add, as peculiar to Mark and "bewraying" Peter, the designation of Christ as "the carpenter" (Mark 6:3); the name of the blind beggar at Jericho, "Bartimaeus" (10:46); the "cushion" in the boat on which Jesus slept (4:38); the "green grass" on the hill side in spring time (4:39); the "one loaf" in the ship (8:14); the colt "tied at the door without in the open street" (11:4); the address to the daughter of Jairus in her mother tongue (5:41); the bilingual "Abba, Father," in the prayer at Gethsemane (14:36; comp. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

Conclusion.

The natural conclusion from all these peculiarities is that Mark’s Gospel, far from being an extract from Matthew or Luke or both, as formerly held,(115) is a thoroughly independent and original work, as has been proven by minute investigations of critics of different schools and aims.(116) It is in all its essential parts a fresh, life-like, and trustworthy record of the persons and events of the gospel history from the lips of honest old Peter and from the pen of his constant attendant and pupil. Jerome hit it in the fourth century, and unbiassed critics in the nineteenth century confirm it: Peter was the narrator, Mark the writer, of the second Gospel.(117)

Some have gone further and maintain that Mark, "the interpreter of Peter," simply translated a Hebrew Gospel of his teacher;(118) but tradition knows nothing of a Hebrew Peter, while it speaks of a Hebrew Matthew; and a book is called after its author, not after its translator. It is enough to say Peter was the preacher, Mark the reporter and editor.

The bearing of this fact upon the reliableness of the Synoptic record of the life of Christ is self-evident. It leaves no room for the mythical or legendary hypothesis.(119)

Integrity of the Gospel.

The Gospel closes (Mark 16:9–20) with a rapid sketch of the wonders of the resurrection and ascension, and the continued manifestations of power that attend the messengers of Christ in preaching the gospel to the whole creation. This close is upon the whole characteristic of Mark and presents the gospel as a divine power pervading and transforming the world, but it contains some peculiar features, namely: (1) one of the three distinct narratives of Christ’s ascension (16:19, "he was received up into heaven;" the other two being those of Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9–11), with the additional statement that he "sat down at the right hand of God" (comp. the similar statement, 1 Pet. 3:22) (2) an emphatic declaration of the necessity of baptism for salvation ("he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"), with the negative clause that unbelief (i.e., the rejection of the gospel offer of salvation) condemns ("he that disbelieveth shall be condemned");(120) (3) the fact that the apostles disbelieved the report of Mary Magdalene until the risen Lord appeared to them personally (Mark 16:11–14; but John intimates the same, John 20:8, 9, especially in regard to Thomas, 20:25, and Matthew mentions that some doubted, Matt. 28:17; comp. Luke 24:37–41); (4) an authoritative promise of supernatural powers and signs which shall accompany the believers (Mark 16:17, 18). Among these is mentioned the pentecostal glossolalia under the unique name of speaking with new tongues.(121)

The genuineness of this closing section is hotly contested, and presents one of the most difficult problems of textual criticism. The arguments are almost equally strong on both sides, but although the section cannot be proven to be a part of the original Gospel, it seems clear: (1) that it belongs to primitive tradition (like the disputed section of the adulteress in John 8); and (2) that Mark cannot have closed his Gospel with Mark 16:8 (gavr) without intending a more appropriate conclusion. The result does not affect the character and credibility of the Gospel. The section may be authentic or correct in its statements, without being genuine or written by Mark. There is nothing in it which, properly understood, does not harmonize with apostolic teaching.

Note on the Disputed Close of Mark, 16:9–20.

I. Reasons against the genuineness:

The section is wanting altogether in the two oldest and most valuable uncial manuscripts, the Sinaitic (a ) and the Vatican (B). The latter, it is true, after ending the Gospel with Mark 16:8 and the subscription kata mapkon, leaves the remaining third column blank, which is sufficient space for the twelve verses. Much account is made of this fact by Drs. Burgon and Scrivener; but in the same MS. I find, on examination of the facsimile edition, blank spaces from a few lines up to two-thirds and three-fourths of a column, at the end of Matthew, John, Acts, 1 Pet. (fol. 200), 1 John (fol. 208), Jude (fol. 210), Rom. (fol. 227), Eph. (fol. 262), Col. (fol. 272). In the Old Testament of B, as Dr. Abbot has first noted (in 1872), there are two blank columns at the end of Nehemiah, and a blank column and a half at the end of Tobit. In any case the omission indicates an objection of the copyist of B to the section, or its absence in the earlier manuscript he used.

I add the following private note from Dr. Abbot:, "In the Alexandrian MS. a column and a third are left blank at the end of Mark, half a page at the end of John, and a whole page at the end of the Pauline Epistles. (Contrast the ending of Matthew and Acts.) In the Old Testament, note especially in this MS. Leviticus, Isaiah, and the Ep. of Jeremiah, at the end of each of which half a page or more is left blank; contrast Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations. There are similar blanks at the end of Ruth, 2 Samuel, and Daniel, but the last leaf of those books ends a quaternion or quire in the MS. In the Sinaitic MS. more than two columns with the whole following page are left blank at the end of the Pauline Epistles, though the two next leaves belong to the same quaternion; so at the end of the Acts a column and two-thirds with the whole of the following page; and at the end of Barnabas a column and a half. These examples show that the matter in question depended largely on the whim of the copyist; and that we can not infer with confidence that the scribe of B knew of any other ending of the Gospel."

There is also a shorter conclusion, unquestionably spurious, which in L and several MSS. of the Aethiopic version immediately follows Mark 16:8, and appears also in the margin of 274, the Harclean Syriac, and the best Coptic MS. of the Gospel, while in k of the Old Latin it takes the place of the longer ending. For details, see Westcott and Hort, II., Append., pp. 30, 38, 44 sq.

Eusebius and Jerome state expressly that the section was wanting in almost all the Greek copies of the Gospels. It was not in the copy used by Victor of Antioch. There is also negative patristic evidence against it, particularly strong in the case of Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who had special occasion to quote it (see Westcott and Hort, II., Append., pp. 30–38). Jerome’s statement, however, is weakened by the fact that he seems to depend upon Eusebius, and that he himself translated the passage in his Vulgate.
It is ’wanting in the important MS. k representing the African text of the Old Latin version, which has a different conclusion (like that in L), also in some of the best MSS. of the Armenian version, while in others it follows the usual subscription. It is also wanting in an unpublished Arabic version (made from the Greek) in the Vatican Library, which is likewise noteworthy for reading o{" in 1 Tim. 3:16.
The way in which the section begins, and in which it refers to Mary Magdalene, give it the air of a conclusion derived from some extraneous source. It does not record the fulfilment of the promise in Mark 16:7. It uses (16:9) prwvth/ sabbavtou for the Hebraistic th'/ mia'/ tw'n sabbavtwn of 16:2. It has many words or phrases (e.g., poreuvomai used three times) not elsewhere found in Mark, which strengthen the impression that we are dealing with a different writer, and it lacks Mark’s usual graphic detail. But the argument from difference of style and vocabulary has been overstrained, and can not be regarded as in itself decisive.

Arguments in favor of the genuineness:

The section is found in most of the uncial MSS., A C D C G D S, in all the late uncials (in L as a secondary reading), and in all the cursive MSS., including 1, 33, 69, etc.; though a number of the cursives either mark it with an asterisk or note its omission in older copies. Hence the statements of Eusebius and Jerome seem to need some qualification. In MSS 22 (as Dr. Burgon has first pointed out) the liturgical word tevlo" denoting the end of a reading lesson, is inserted after both Mark 16:8 and 16:20, while no such word is placed at the end of the other Gospels. This shows that there were two endings of Mark in different copies.
Also in most of the ancient versions, the Itala (with the exception of "k," or the codex Bobbiensis, used by Columban), the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac (last part), the Peshito, the Philoxenian, the Coptic, the Gothic (first part), and the Aethiopic, but in several MSS. only after the spurious shorter conclusion. Of these versions the Itala, the Curetonian and Peshito Syriac, and the Coptic, are older than any of our Greek codices, but the MSS. of the Coptic are not older than the twelfth or tenth century, and may have undergone changes as well as the Greek MSS.; and the MSS. of the Ethiopic are all modern. The best MSS. of the old Latin are mutilated here. The only extant fragment of Mark in the Curetonian Syriac is 16:17–20, so that we cannot tell whether Mark 16:9–20 immediately followed 16:8, or appeared as they do in cod. L. But Aphraates quotes it.
In all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries or evangeliaries and synaxaries, as far as examined, which contain the Scripture reading lessons for the churches. Dr. Burgon lays great stress on their testimony (ch. X.), but he overrates their antiquity. The lection-systems cannot be traced beyond the middle of the fourth century when great liturgical changes took place. At that time the disputed verses were widely circulated and eagerly seized as a suitable resurrection and ascension lesson.
Irenaeus of Lyons, in the second half of the second century, long before Eusebius, expressly quotes Mark 16:19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark (Adv. Haer., III. 10, 6). The still earlier testimony of Justin Martyr (Apol., I. 45) is doubtful (The quotation of Mark 16:17 and 18 in lib. viii., c. 1 of the Apostolic Constitutions is wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus.) Marinus, Macarius Magnes (or at least the heathen writer whom he cites), Didymus, Chrysostom (??), Epiphanius, Nestorius, the apocryphal Gesta Pilati, Ambrose, Augustin, and other later fathers quote from the section.
A strong intrinsic argument is derived from the fact that Mark cannot intentionally have concluded his Gospel with the words ejfobou'nto gavr (Mark 16:8). He must either have himself written the last verses or some other conclusion, which was accidently lost before the book was multiplied by transcription; or he was unexpectedly prevented from finishing his book, and the conclusion was supplied by a friendly hand from oral tradition or some written source.

In view of these facts the critics and exegetes are very much divided. The passage is defended as genuine by Simon, Mill, Bengel, Storr, Matthaei, Hug, Schleiermacher, De Wette, Bleek, Olshausen, Lange, Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Broadus ("Bapt. Quarterly," Philad., 1869), Burgon (1871), Scrivener, Wordsworth, McClellan, Cook, Morison (1882). It is rejected or questioned by the critical editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort (though retained by all in the text with or without brackets), and by such critics and Commentators as Fritzsche, Credner, Reuss, Wieseler, Holtzmann, Keim, Scholten, Klostermann, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, Norton, Davidson. Some of these opponents, however, while denying the composition of the section by Mark, regard the contents as a part of the apostolic tradition. Michelsen surrenders only 16:9–14, and saves 16:15–20. Ewald and Holtzmann conjecture the original conclusion from 16:9, 10 and 16–20; Volkmar invents one from elements of all the Synoptists.

Solutions of the problem. All mere conjectures; certainty is impossible in this case.

Mark himself added the section in a later edition, issued perhaps in Alexandria, having been interrupted in Rome just as he came to 16:8, either by Peter’s imprisonment and martyrdom, or by sickness, or some accident. Incomplete copies got into circulation before he was able to finish the book. So Michaelis, Hug, and others.
The original conclusion of Mark was lost by some accident, most probably from the original autograph (where it may have occupied a separate leaf), and the present paragraph was substituted by an anonymous editor or collector in the second century. So Griesbach, Schulthess, David Schulz.
Luke wrote the section. So Hitzig (Johannes Marcus, p. 187).
Godet (in his Com. on Luke, p. 8 and p. 513, Engl. transl.) modifies this hypothesis by assuming that a third hand supplied the close, partly from Luke’s Gospel, which had appeared in the mean time, and partly (Mark 16:17, 18) from another source. He supposes that Mark was interrupted by the unexpected outbreak of the Neronian persecution in 64 and precipitously fled from the capital, leaving his unfinished Gospel behind, which was afterward completed when Luke’s Gospel appeared. In this way Godet accounts for the fact that up to Mark 16:8 Luke had no influence on Mark, while such influence is apparent in the concluding section.
It was the end of one of the lost Gospel fragments used by Luke 1:1, and appended to Mark’s by the last redactor. Ewald.
The section is from the pen of Mark, but was purposely omitted by some scribe in the third century from hierarchical prejudice, because it represents the apostles in an unfavorable light after the resurrection, so that the Lord "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart" (Mark 16:14). Lange (Leben Jesu, I. 166). Unlikely.
The passage is genuine, but was omitted in some valuable copy by a misunderstanding of the word tevlo" which often is found after Mark 16:8 in cursives. So Burgon. "According to the Western order," he says (in the "Quarterly Review" for Oct., 1881), "S. Mark occupies the last place. From the earliest period it had been customary to write tevlo" (The End) after 16:8, in token that there a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. Let the last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at 16:9, and let that last leaf have perished;—and all is plain. A faithful copyist will have ended the Gospel perforce—as B and a have done—at S. Mark 16:8." But this liturgical mark is not old enough to explain the omission in a, B, and the MSS. of Eusebius and Jerome; and a reading lesson would close as abruptly with gavr as the Gospel itself.
The passage cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age. Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown, but it is apparently older than the time when the canonical Gospels were generally received; for although it has points of contact with them all, it contains no attempt to harmonize their various representations of the course of events. So Dr. Hort (II., Appendix, 51). A similar view was held by Dean Alford.

For full information we refer to the critical apparatus of Tischendorf and Tregelles, to the monograph of Weiss on Mark (Das Marcusevang., pp. 512–515), and especially to the exhaustive discussion of Westcott and Hort in the second volume (Append., pp. 29–51). The most elaborate vindication of the genuineness is by Dean Burgon: The Last Twelve Verses o f the Gospel according to S. Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objections and Established (Oxford and Lond., 1871, 334 pages), a very learned book, but marred by its over-confident tone and unreasonable hostility to the oldest uncial MSS. (a and B) and the most meritorious textual critics (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles). For other able defences see Dr. Scrivener (Introd. to the Criticism of the New Test., 3d ed., 1883, pp. 583–590), Dr. Morison (Com. on Mark, pp. 446 and 463 sqq.), and Canon Cook (in Speaker’s Com. on Mark, pp. 301–308).

Lachmann gives the disputed section, according to his principle to furnish the text as found in the fourth century, but did not consider it genuine (see his article in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1830, p. 843). Tischendorf and Tregelles set the twelve verses apart. Alford incloses them in single brackets, Westcott and Hort in double brackets, as an early interpolation; the Revised Version of 1881 retains them with a marginal note, and with a space between Mark 16:8 and 9. Dean Burgon ("Quarterly Rev." for Oct., 1881) holds this note of the Revision (which simply states an acknowledged fact) to be "the gravest blot of all," and triumphantly refers the critical editors and Revisionists to his "separate treatise extending over 300 pages, which for the best of reasons has never yet been answered," and in which he has "demonstrated," as he assures us, that the last twelve verses in Mark are "as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named." The infallible organ in the Vatican seems to have a formidable rival in Chichester, but they are in irreconcilable conflict on the true reading of the angelic anthem (Luke 2:14): the Pope chanting with the Vulgate the genitive (eujdokiva", bonae voluntatis), the Dean, in the same article, denouncing this as a "grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture," and holding the evidence for the nominative (eujdokiva) to be "absolutely decisive," as if the combined testimony of a* A B D, Irenaeus, Origen (lat.), Jerome, all the Latin MSS., and the Latin Gloria in Excelsis were of no account, as compared with his judgment or preference.

§ 82. Luke.

*Lucas, Evangelii el medicinae munera pandens;

Artibus hinc, illinc religione, valet:*

*Utilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri;

Utilior, per quem tot didicere mori!"*

Critical and Biographical

Schleiermacher: Ueber die Schriften des Lukas. Berlin, 1817. Reprinted in the second vol. of his Sämmtliche Werke, Berlin, 1836 (pp. 1–220). Translated by Bishop Thirlwall, London, 1825.

James Smith (of Jordanhill, d. 1867): Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, prefixed to his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (1848), 4th ed., revised by Walter E. Smith, London, 1880 (pp. 293). A most important monograph, especially for the historical accuracy and credibility of the Acts, by an expert in navigation and an able scholar.

E. Renan: Les Évangiles. Paris, 1877. Ch. XIX, pp. 435–448.

Th. Keim: Aus dem Urchristenthum. Zürich, 1878, Josephus im N. T., pp. 1–27. An unsuccessful attempt to prove that Luke used Josephus in his chronological statement, Luke 3:1, 2. Keim assumes that the third Gospel was written after the "Jewish war" of Josephus (about 75–78), and possibly after his "Antiquities" (a.d. 94), though in his Geschichte Jesu (I. 71) he assigns the composition of Luke to a.d. 90.

Scholten: Das Paulinische Evangelium, transl. from the Dutch by Redepenning. Elberf., 1881.

The Ancient Testimonies on the Genuineness of Luke, see in Charteris (Kirchhofer): Canonicity, Edinb., 1880, pp. l54–166.

On the relation of Luke to Marcion, see especially Volkmar: Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipz., 1852, and Sanday: The Gospels in the Second Century, London, 1876 (and his article in the "Fortnightly Review" for June, 1875).

Exegetical.

Commentaries by Origen (in Jerome’s Latin translation, with a few Greek fragments), Eusebius (fragments), Cyril of Alexandria (Syriac Version with translation, ed. by Dean Smith, Oxf., 1858 and 1859), Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact.—Modern Com.: Bornemann (Scholia in Luc. Ev., 1830), De Wette (Mark and Luke, 3d ed., 1846), Meyer (Mark and Luke, 6th ed., revised by B. Weiss, 1878), James Thomson (Edinb., 1851, 3 vols.), J. J. Van Oosterzee (in Lange, 3d ed., 1867, Engl. ed. by Schaff and Starbuck, N. Y., 1866), Fr. Godet (one of the very best, 2d French ed., 1870, Engl. transl. by Shalders and Cusin, Edinb., 1875, 2 vols., reprinted in N. Y., 1881), Bishop W. B. Jones (in Speaker’s Com., Lond. and N. Y., 1878), E. H. Plumptre (in Bp. Ellicott’s Com. for English Readers, Lond., 1879), Frederich W. Farrar (Cambridge, 1880), Matthew B. Riddle (1882).

Life of Luke.

As Mark is inseparably associated with Peter, so is Luke with Paul. There was, in both cases, a foreordained correspondence and congeniality between the apostle and the historian or co-laborer. We find such holy and useful friendships in the great formative epochs of the church, notably so in the time of the Reformation, between Luther and Melanchthon, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, Calvin and Beza, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley; and at a later period between the two Wesleys and Whitefield. Mark, the Hebrew Roman "interpreter" of the Galilaean fisherman, gave us the shortest, freshest, but least elegant and literary of the Gospels; Luke, the educated Greek, "the beloved physician," and faithful companion of Saul of Tarsus, composed the longest and most literary Gospel, and connected it with the great events in secular history under the reigns of Augustus and his successors. If the former was called the Gospel of Peter by the ancients, the latter, in a less direct sense, may be called the Gospel of Paul, for its agreement in spirit with the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles. In their accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper there is even a verbal agreement which points to the same source of information. No doubt there was frequent conference between the two, but no allusion is made to each other’s writings, which tends to prove that they were composed independently during the same period, or not far apart.(122)

Luke nowhere mentions his name in the two books which are by the unanimous consent of antiquity ascribed to him, and bear all the marks of the same authorship; but he is modestly concealed under the "we" of a great portion of the Acts, which is but a continuation of the third Gospel.(123) He is honorably and affectionately mentioned three times by Paul during his imprisonment, as "the beloved physician" (Col. 4:14), as one of his "fellow-laborers" (Philem. 24), and as the most faithful friend who remained with him when friend after friend had deserted him (2 Tim. 4:11). His medical profession, although carried on frequently by superior slaves, implies some degree of education and accounts for the accuracy of his medical terms and description of diseases.(124) It gave him access to many families of social position, especially in the East, where physicians are rare. It made him all the more useful to Paul in the infirmities of his flesh and his exhausting labors.(125)

He was a Gentile by birth,(126) though he may have become a proselyte of the gate. His nationality and antecedents are unknown. He was probably a Syrian of Antioch, and one of the earliest converts in that mother church of Gentile Christianity.(127) This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that he gives us much information about the church in Antioch (Acts 11:19–30; 13:1–3; 15:1–3, 22–35), that he traces the origin of the name "Christians" to that city (11:19), and that in enumerating the seven deacons of Jerusalem he informs us of the Antiochian origin of Nicolas (Acts 6:5), without mentioning the nationality of any of the others.(128)

We meet Luke first as a companion of Paul at Troas, when, after the Macedonian call, "Come over and help us," he was about to carry the gospel to Greece on his second great missionary tour. For from that important epoch Luke uses the first personal pronoun in the plural: "When he [Paul] had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel unto them" (Acts 16:10). He accompanied him to Philippi and seems to have remained there after the departure of Paul and Silas for Corinth (a.d. 51), in charge of the infant church; for the "we" is suddenly replaced by "they" (17:1). Seven years later (a.d. 58) he joined the apostle again, when he passed through Philippi on his last journey to Jerusalem, stopping a week at Troas (Acts 20:5, 6); for from that moment Luke resumes the "we" of the narrative. He was with Paul or near him at Jerusalem and two years at Caesarea, accompanied him on his perilous voyage to Rome, of which he gives a most accurate account, and remained with him to the end of his first Roman captivity, with which he closes his record (a.d. 63). He may however, have been temporarily absent on mission work during the four years of Paul’s imprisonment. Whether he accompanied him on his intended visit to Spain and to the East, after the year 63, we do not know. The last allusion to him is the word of Paul when on the point of martyrdom: "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11).

The Bible leaves Luke at the height of his usefulness in the best company, with Paul preaching the gospel in the metropolis of the world.

Post-apostolic tradition, always far below the healthy and certain tone of the New Testament, mostly vague and often contradictory, never reliable, adds that he lived to the age of eighty-four, labored in several countries, was a painter of portraits of Jesus, of the Virgin, and the apostles, and that he was crucified on an olive-tree at Elaea in Greece. His real or supposed remains, together with those of Andrew the apostle, were transferred from Patrae in Achaia to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople.(129)

The symbolic poetry of the Church assigns to him the sacrificial ox; but the symbol of man is more appropriate; for his Gospel is par excellence the Gospel of the Son of Man.

Sources of Information.

According to his own confession in the preface, Luke was no eye-witness of the gospel history,(130) but derived his information from oral reports of primitive disciples, and from numerous fragmentary documents then already in circulation. He wrote the Gospel from what he had heard and read, the Acts from, what he had seen and heard. He traced the origin of Christianity "accurately from the beginning."

His opportunities were the very best. He visited the principal apostolic churches between Jerusalem and Rome, and came in personal contact with the founders and leaders. He met Peter, Mark, and Barnabas at Antioch, James and his elders at Jerusalem (on Paul’s last visit) Philip and his daughters at Caesarea, the early converts in Greece and Rome; and he enjoyed, besides, the benefit of all the information which Paul himself had received by revelation or collected from personal intercourse with his fellow-apostles and other primitive disciples. The sources for the history of the infancy were Jewish-Christian and Aramaean (hence the strongly Hebraizing coloring of Luke 1–2); his information of the activity of Christ in Samaria was probably derived from Philip, who labored there as an evangelist and afterwards in Caesarea. But a man of Luke’s historic instinct and conscientiousness would be led to visit also in person the localities in Galilee which are immortalized by the ministry of Christ. From Jerusalem or Caesarea he could reach them all in three or four days.

The question whether Luke also used one or both of the other Synoptic Gospels has already been discussed in a previous section. It is improbable that he included them among his evidently fragmentary sources alluded to in the preface. It is certain that he had no knowledge of our Greek Matthew; on the use of a lost Hebrew Matthew and of Mark the opinion of good scholars is divided, but the resemblance with Mark, though very striking in some sections,(131) is not of such a character that it cannot as well, and even better, be explained from prior oral tradition or autoptical memoirs, especially if we consider that the resemblances are neutralized by unaccountable differences and omissions. The matter is not helped by a reference to a proto-Mark, either Hebrew or Greek, of which we know nothing.

Luke has a great deal of original and most valuable matter, which proves his independence and the variety of his sources. He adds much to our knowledge of the Saviour, and surpasses Matthew and Mark in fulness, accuracy, and chronological order—three points which, with all modesty, he claims to have aimed at in his preface.(132) Sometimes he gives special fitness and beauty to a word of Christ by inserting it in its proper place in the narrative, and connecting it with a particular occasion. But there are some exceptions, where Matthew is fuller, and where Mark is more chronological. Considering the fact that about thirty years had elapsed since the occurrence of the events, we need not wonder that some facts and words were dislocated, and that Luke, with all his honest zeal, did not always succeed in giving the original order.

The peculiar sections of Luke are in keeping with the rest. They have not the most remote affinity with apocryphal marvels and fables, nor even with the orthodox traditions and legends of the post-apostolic age, but are in full harmony with the picture of Christ as it shines from the other Gospels and from the Epistles. His accuracy has been put to the severest test, especially in the Acts, where he frequently alludes to secular rulers and events; but while a few chronological difficulties, as that of the census of Quirinius, are not yet satisfactorily removed, he has upon the whole, even in minute particulars, been proven to be a faithful, reliable, and well informed historian.

He is the proper father of Christian church history, and a model well worthy of imitation for his study of the sources, his conscientious accuracy, his modesty and his lofty aim to instruct and confirm in the truth.

Dedication and Object.

The third Gospel, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, is dedicated to a certain Theophilus (i.e., Friend of God), a man of social distinction, perhaps in the service of the government, as appears from his title "honorable" or "most noble."(133) He was either a convert or at least a catechumen in preparation for church membership, and willing to become sponsor and patron of these books. The custom of dedicating books to princes and rich friends of literature was formerly very frequent, and has not died out yet. As to his race and residence we can only conjecture that Theophilus was a Greek of Antioch, where Luke, himself probably an Antiochean, may have previously known him either as his freedman or physician. The pseudo-Clementine Recognitions mention a certain nobleman of that name at Antioch who was converted by Peter and changed his palace into a church and residence of the apostle.(134)

The object of Luke was to confirm Theophilus and through him all his readers in the faith in which he had already been orally instructed, and to lead him to the conviction of the irrefragable certainty of the facts on which Christianity rests.(135)

Luke wrote for Gentile Christians, especially Greeks, as Matthew wrote for Jews, Mark for Romans, John for advanced believers without distinction of nationality. He briefly explains for Gentile readers the position of Palestinian towns, as Nazareth, Capernaum, Arimathaea, and the distance of Mount Olivet and Emmaus from Jerusalem.(136) He does not, like Matthew, look back to the past and point out the fulfilment of ancient prophecy with a view to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, but takes a universal view of Christ as the Saviour of all men and fulfiller of the aspirations of every human heart. He brings him in contact with the events of secular history in the vast empire of Augustus, and with the whole human race by tracing his ancestry back to Adam.

These features would suit Gentile readers generally, Romans as well as Greeks. But the long residence of Luke in Greece, and the ancient tradition that he labored and died there, give strength to the view that he had before his mind chiefly readers of that country. According to Jerome the Gospel was written (completed) in Achaia and Boeotia. The whole book is undoubtedly admirably suited to Greek taste. It at once captivates the refined Hellenic ear by a historic prologue of classic construction, resembling the prologues of Herodotus and Thucydides. It is not without interest to compare them.

Luke begins: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fufilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most noble Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed."

Herodotus: "These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in order to preserve from oblivion the remembrance of former deeds of men, and to secure a just tribute of glory to the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the barbarians; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feud."

Thucydides: "Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war in which the Peloponnesians and the Athenians fought against one another. He began to write when they first took up arms, believing that it would be great and memorable above any previous war. For he argued that both States were then at the full height of their military power, and he saw the rest of the Hellenes either siding or intending to side with one or other of them. No movement ever stirred Hellas more deeply than this; it was shared by many of the barbarians, and might be said even to affect the world at large." (Jowett’s translation.)

These prefaces excel alike in brevity, taste, and tact, but with this characteristic difference: the Evangelist modestly withholds his name and writes in the pure interest of truth a record of the gospel of peace for the spiritual welfare of all men; while the great pagan historians are inspired by love of glory, and aim to immortalize the destructive wars and feuds of Greeks and barbarians.

Contents of the Gospel of Luke.

After a historiographic preface, Luke gives us: first a history of the birth and infancy of John the Baptist and Jesus, from Hebrew sources, with an incident from the boyhood of the Saviour (Luke 1 and 2). Then he unfolds the history of the public ministry in chronological order from the baptism in the Jordan to the resurrection and ascension. We need only point out those facts and discourses which are not found in the other Gospels and which complete the Synoptic history at the beginning, middle, and end of the life of our Lord.(137)

Luke supplies the following sections:

I. In the history of the Infancy of John and Christ:

The appearance of the angel of the Lord to Zacharias in the temple announcing the birth of John, Luke 1:5–25.

The annunciation of the birth of Christ to the Virgin Mary, 1:26–38.

The visit of the Virgin Mary to Elizabeth; the salutation of Elizabeth, 1:39–45.

The Magnificat of the Virgin Mary, 1:46–56.

The birth of John the Baptist, 1:57–66.

The Benedictus of Zacharias, 1:67–80.

The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, 2:1–7.

The appearance of the angels to the shepherds of Bethlehem, and the "Gloria in excelsis," 2:8–20.

The circumcision of Jesus, and his presentation in the Temple, 2:21–38.

The visit of Jesus in his twelfth year to the passover in Jerusalem, and his conversation with the Jewish doctors in the Temple, 2:41–52.

To this must be added the genealogy of Christ from Abraham up to Adam; while Matthew begins, in the inverse order, with Abraham, and presents in the parallel section several differences which show their mutual independence, Luke 3:23–38; comp. Matt. 1:1–17.

In the Public Life of our Lord a whole group of important events, discourses, and incidents which occurred at different periods, but mostly on a circuitous journey from Capernaum to Jerusalem through Samaria and Peraea (9:51–18:14). This section includes—

The following miracles and incidents:

The miraculous draught of fishes, 5:4–11.

The raising of the widow’s son at Nain, 7:11–18.

The pardoning of the sinful woman who wept at the feet of Jesus, 7:36–50.

The support of Christ by devout women who are named, 8:2, 3.

The rebuke of the Sons of Thunder in a Samaritan village, 9:51–56.

The Mission and Instruction of the Seventy, 10:1–6.

Entertainment at the house of Martha and Mary; the one thing needful, 10:38–42.

The woman who exclaimed: "Blessed is the womb that bare thee," 11:27.

The man with the dropsy, 14:1–6.

The ten lepers, 17:11–19.

The visit to Zacchaeus, 19:1–10.

The tears of Jesus over Jerusalem, 19:41–44.

The sifting of Peter, 22:31, 32.

The healing of Malchus, 22:50, 51.

Original Parables:

The two Debtors, 7:41–43.

The good Samaritan, 10:25–37.

The importunate Friend, 11:5–8.

The rich Fool, 12:16–21.

The barren Fig-tree, 13:6–9.

The lost Drachma, 15:8–10.

The prodigal Son, 15:11–32.

The unjust Steward, 16:1–13.

Dives and Lazarus, 16:19–31.

The importunate Widow, and the unjust Judge, 18:1–8.

The Pharisee and the Publican 18:10–14.

The ten Pounds, 19:11–28 (not to be identified with the Parable of the Talents in Matt. 25:14–30).

In the history of the Crucifixion and Resurrection

The lament of the women on the way to the cross, Luke 23:27–30.

The prayer of Christ for his murderers, 23:3

His conversation with the penitent malefactor and promise of a place in paradise, 23:39–43.

The appearance of the risen Lord to the two Disciples on the way to Emmaus, 24:13–25; briefly mentioned also in the disputed conclusion of Mark, 16:12, 13.

The account of the ascension, Luke 24:50–53; comp. Mark 16:19, 20; and Acts 1:3–12.

Characteristic Features of Luke.

The third Gospel is the Gospel of free salvation to all men.(138) This corresponds to the two cardinal points in the doctrinal system of Paul: gratuitousness and universalness of salvation.

It is eminently the Gospel of free salvation by grace through faith. Its motto is: Christ came to save sinners. "Saviour" and "salvation" are the most prominent ideas(139) Mary, anticipating the birth of her Son, rejoices in God her "Saviour" (Luke 1:47); and an angel announces to the shepherds of Bethlehem "good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people "(2:10), namely, the birth of Jesus as the "Saviour" of men (not only as the Christ of the Jews). He is throughout represented as the merciful friend of sinners, as the healer of the sick, as the comforter of the broken-hearted, as the shepherd of the lost sheep. The parables peculiar to Luke—of the prodigal son, of the lost piece of money, of the publican in the temple, of the good Samaritan—exhibit this great truth which Paul so fully sets forth in his Epistles. The parable of the Pharisee and the publican plucks up self-righteousness by the root, and is the foundation of the doctrine of justification by faith. The paralytic and the woman that was a sinner received pardon by faith alone. Luke alone relates the prayer of Christ on the cross for his murderers, and the promise of paradise to the penitent robber, and he ends with a picture of the ascending Saviour lifting up his hands and blessing his disciples.

The other Evangelists do not neglect this aspect of Christ; nothing can be more sweet and comforting than his invitation to sinners in Matthew 11, or his farewell to the disciples in John; but Luke dwells on it with peculiar delight. He is the painter of Christus Salvator and Christus Consolator.

It is the Gospel of universal salvation. It is emphatically the Gospel for the Gentiles. Hence the genealogy of Christ is traced back not only to Abraham (as in Matthew), but to Adam, the son of God and the father of all men (Luke 3:38). Christ is the second Adam from heaven, the representative Head of redeemed humanity—an idea further developed by Paul. The infant Saviour is greeted by Simeon as a "Light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel" (2:32). The Baptist, in applying the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the voice in the wilderness (Isa. 40), adds the words (from Isa. 52:10): "All flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6). Luke alone records the mission of the Seventy Disciples who represent the Gentile nations, as the Twelve represent the twelve tribes of Israel. He alone mentions the mission of Elijah to the heathen widow in Sarepta, and the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian by Elisha (4:26, 27). He contrasts the gratitude of the leprous Samaritan with the ingratitude of the nine Jewish lepers (17:12–18). He selects discourses and parables, which exhibit God’s mercy to Samaritans and Gentiles(140) Yet there is no contradiction, for some of the strongest passages which exhibit Christ’s mercy to the Gentiles and humble the Jewish pride are found in Matthew, the Jewish Evangelist.(141) The assertion that the third Gospel is a glorification of the Gentile (Pauline) apostolate, and a covert attack on the Twelve, especially Peter, is a pure fiction of modern hypercriticism.
It is the Gospel of the genuine and full humanity of Christ.(142) It gives us the key-note for the construction of a real history of Jesus from infancy to boyhood and manhood. Luke represents him as the purest and fairest among the children of men, who became like unto us in all things except sin and error. He follows him through the stages of his growth. He alone tells us that the child Jesus "grew and waxed strong," not only physically, but also in "wisdom" (Luke 2:40); he alone reports the remarkable scene in the temple, informing us that Jesus, when twelve years old, sat as a learner "in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking questions;" and that, even after that time, He "advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (2:46, 52). All the Synoptists narrate the temptation in the wilderness, and Mark adds horror to the scene by the remark that Christ was "with the wild beasts" (Mark 1:12, meta; tw'n qhrivwn); but Luke has the peculiar notice that the devil departed from Jesus only "for a season." He alone mentions the tears of Jesus over Jerusalem, and "the bloody sweat" and the strengthening angel in the agony of Gethsemane. As he brings out the gradual growth of Jesus, and the progress of the gospel from Nazareth to Capernaum, from Capernaum to Jerusalem, so afterwards, in the Acts, he traces the growth of the church from Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus and Corinth, from Greece to Rome. His is the Gospel of historical development. To him we are indebted for nearly all the hints that link the gospel facts with the contemporary history of the world.
It is the Gospel of universal humanity. It breathes the genuine spirit of charity, liberty, equality, which emanate from the Saviour of mankind, but are so often counterfeited by his great antagonist, the devil. It touches the tenderest chords of human sympathy. It delights in recording Christ’s love and compassion for the sick, the lowly, the despised, even the harlot and the prodigal. It mentions the beatitudes pronounced on the poor and the hungry, his invitation to the maimed, the halt, and the blind, his prayer on the cross for pardon of the wicked murderers, his promise to the dying robber. It rebukes the spirit of bigotry and intolerance of the Jews against Samaritans, in the parable of the good Samaritan. It reminds the Sons of Thunder when they were about to call fire from heaven upon a Samaritan village that He came not to destroy but to save. It tells us that "he who is not against Christ is for Christ," no matter what sectarian or unsectarian name he may bear.
It is the Gospel for woman. It weaves the purest types of womanhood into the gospel story: Elizabeth, who saluted the Saviour before his birth; the Virgin, whom all generations call blessed; the aged prophetess Anna, who departed not from the temple; Martha, the busy, hospitable housekeeper, with her quiet, contemplative sister Mary of Bethany; and that noble band of female disciples who ministered of their substance to the temporal wants of the Son of God and his apostles.

It reveals the tender compassion of Christ for all the suffering daughters of Eve: the widow at Nain mourning at the bier of her only son; for the fallen sinner who bathed his feet with her tears; for the poor sick woman, who had wasted all her living upon physicians, and whom he addressed as "Daughter;" and for the "daughters of Jerusalem" who followed him weeping to Calvary. If anywhere we may behold the divine humanity of Christ and the perfect union of purity and love, dignity and tender compassion, it is in the conduct of Jesus towards women and children. "The scribes and Pharisees gathered up their robes in the streets and synagogues lest they should touch a woman, and held it a crime to look on an unveiled woman in public; our Lord suffered a woman to minister to him out of whom he had cast seven devils."

It is the Gospel for children, and all who are of a childlike spirit. It sheds a sacred halo and celestial charm over infancy, as perpetuating the paradise of innocence in a sinful world. It alone relates the birth and growth of John, the particulars of the birth of Christ, his circumcision and presentation in the temple, his obedience to parents, his growth from infancy to boyhood, from boyhood to manhood. Luke 1 – 2 will always be the favorite chapters for children and all who delight to gather around the manger of Bethlehem and to rejoice with shepherds on the field and angels in heaven.
It is the Gospel of poetry.(143) We mean the poetry of religion, the poetry of worship, the poetry of prayer and thanksgiving, a poetry resting not on fiction, but on facts and eternal truth. In such poetry there is more truth than in every-day prose. The whole book is full of dramatic vivacity and interest. It begins and ends with thanksgiving and praise. Luke 1–2 are overflowing with festive joy and gladness; they are a paradise of fragrant flowers, and the air is resonant with the sweet melodies of Hebrew psalmody and Christian hymnody. The Salute of Elizabeth ("Ave Maria"), the "Magnificat" of Mary, the "Benedictus" of Zacharias, the "Gloria in Excelsis" of the Angels, the "Nunc Dimittis" of Simeon, sound from generation to generation in every tongue, and are a perpetual inspiration for new hymns of praise to the glory of Christ.

No wonder that the third Gospel has been pronounced, from a purely literary and humanitarian standpoint, to be the most beautiful book ever written.(144)

The Style.

Luke is the best Greek writer among the Evangelists.(145) His style shows his general culture. It is free from solecisms, rich in vocabulary, rhythmical in construction. But as a careful and conscientious historian he varies considerably with the subject and according to the nature of his documents.

Matthew begins characteristically with "Book of generation" or "Genealogy" (bivblo" genevsew"), which looks back to the Hebrew Sepher toledoth (comp. Gen. 5:1; 2:4); Mark with "Beginning of the gospel" (ajrch tou' eujaggelivou), which introduces the reader at once to the scene of present action; Luke with a historiographic prologue of classical ring, and unsurpassed for brevity, modesty, and dignity. But when he enters upon the history of the infancy, which he derived no doubt from Aramaic traditions or documents, his language has a stronger Hebrew coloring than any other portion of the New Testament. The songs of Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, and Simeon, and the anthem of the angelic host, are the last of Hebrew psalms as well as the first of Christian hymns. They can be literally translated back into the Hebrew, without losing their beauty.(146) The same variation in style characterizes the Acts; the first part is Hebrew Greek, the second genuine Greek.

His vocabulary considerably exceeds that of the other Evangelists: he has about 180 terms which occur in his Gospel alone and nowhere else in the New Testament; while Matthew has only about 70, Mark 44, and John 50 peculiar words. Luke’s Gospel has 55, the Acts 135 a{pax legovmena, and among them many verbal compounds and rare technical terms.

The medical training and practice of Luke, "the beloved physician," familiarized him with medical terms, which appear quite naturally, without any ostentation of professional knowledge, in his descriptions of diseases and miracles of healing, and they agree with the vocabulary of ancient medical writers. Thus he speaks of the "great fever" of Peter’s mother-in-law, with reference to the distinction made between great and small fevers (according to Galen);(147) and of "fevers and dysentery," of which the father of Publius at Melita was healed (as Hippocrates uses fever in the plural).(148)

He was equally familiar with navigation, not indeed as a professional seaman, but as an experienced traveller and accurate observer. He uses no less than seventeen nautical terms with perfect accuracy.(149) His description of the Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul in Acts 27–28, as explained and confirmed by a scholarly seaman, furnishes an irrefragable argument for the ability and credibility of the author of that book.(150)

Luke is fond of words of joy and gladness.(151) He often mentions the Holy Spirit, and he is the only writer who gives us an account of the pentecostal miracle.(152) Minor peculiarities are the use of the more correct livmnh of the lake of Galilee for qavlassa, nomikov" and nomodidavskalo" for grammateuv", to; eijrhmevnon in quotations for rjhqevn, nu'n for a[rti, eJspevra for ojyiva, the frequency of attraction of the relative pronoun and participial construction.

There is a striking resemblance between the style of Luke and Paul, which corresponds to their spiritual sympathy and long intimacy.(153) They agree in the report of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which is the oldest we have (from a.d. 57); both substitute: "This cup is the new covenant in My blood," for "This is My blood of the (new) covenant," and add: "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25). They are equally fond of words which characterize the freedom and universal destination of the gospel salvation.(154) They have many terms in common which occur nowhere else in the New Testament.(155) And they often meet in thought and expression in a way that shows both the close intimacy and the mutual independence of the two writers.(156)

Genuineness.(157)

The genuineness of Luke is above reasonable doubt. The character of the Gospel agrees perfectly with what we might expect from the author as far as we know him from the Acts and the Epistles. No other writer answers the description.

The external evidence is not so old and clear as that in favor of Matthew and Mark. Papias makes no mention of Luke. Perhaps he thought it unnecessary, because Luke himself in the preface gives an account of the origin and aim of his book. The allusions in Barnabas, Clement of Rome, and Hermas are vague and uncertain. But other testimonies are sufficient for the purpose. Irenaeus in Gaul says: "Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by the latter." The Muratori fragment which contains the Italian traditions of the canon, mentions the Gospel of "Luke, the physician, whom Paul had associated with himself as one zealous for righteousness, to be his companion, who had not seen the Lord in the flesh, but having carried his inquiries as far back as possible, began his history with the birth of John." Justin Martyr makes several quotations from Luke, though he does not name him.(158) This brings us up to the year 140 or 130. The Gospel is found in all ancient manuscripts and translations.

The heretical testimony of Marcion from the year 140 is likewise conclusive. It was always supposed that his Gospel, the only one he recognized, was a mutilation of Luke, and this view is now confirmed and finally established by the investigations and concessions of the very school which for a short time had endeavored to reverse the order by making Marcion’s caricature the original of Luke.(159) The pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions quote from Luke. Basilides and Valentinus and their followers used all the four Gospels, and are reported to have quoted Luke 1:35 for their purpose.

Celsus must have had Luke in view when he referred to the genealogy of Christ as being traced to Adam.

Credibility.

The credibility of Luke has been assailed on the ground that he shaped the history by his motive and aim to harmonize the Petrine and Pauline, or the Jewish-Christian and the Gentile-Christian parties of the church. But the same critics contradict themselves by discovering, on the other hand, strongly Judaizing and even Ebionitic elements in Luke, and thus make it an incoherent mosaic or clumsy patchwork of moderate Paulinism and Ebionism, or they arbitrarily assume different revisions through which it passed without being unified in plan.

Against this misrepresentation we have to say: (1) An irenic spirit, such as we may freely admit in the writings of Luke, does not imply an alteration or invention of facts. On the contrary, it is simply an unsectarian, catholic spirit which aims at the truth and nothing but the truth, and which is the first duty and virtue of an historian. (2) Luke certainly did not invent those marvellous parables and discourses which have been twisted into subserviency to the tendency hypothesis; else Luke would have had a creative genius of the highest order, equal to that of Jesus himself, while he modestly professes to be simply a faithful collector of actual facts. (3) Paul himself did not invent his type of doctrine, but received it, according to his own solemn asseveration, by revelation from Jesus Christ, who called him to the apostleship of the Gentiles. (4) It is now generally admitted that the Tübingen hypothesis of the difference between the two types and parties in the apostolic church is greatly overstrained and set aside by Paul’s own testimony in the Galatians, which is as irenic and conciliatory to the pillar-apostles as it is uncompromisingly polemic against the "false" brethren or the heretical Judaizers. (5) Some of the strongest anti-Jewish and pro-Gentile testimonies of Christ are found in Matthew and omitted by Luke.(160)

The accuracy of Luke has already been spoken of, and has been well vindicated by Godet against Renan in several minor details. "While remaining quite independent of the other three, the Gospel of Luke is confirmed and supported by them all."

Time of Composition.

There are strong indications that the third Gospel was composed (not published) between 58 and 63, before the close of Paul’s Roman captivity. No doubt it took several years to collect and digest the material; and the book was probably not published, i.e., copied and distributed, till after the death of Paul, at the same time with the Acts, which forms the second part and is dedicated to the same patron. In this way the conflicting accounts of Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus may be harmonized.(161)

Luke had the best leisure for literary composition during the four years of Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea and Rome. In Caesarea he was within easy reach of the surviving eyewitnesses and classical spots of the gospel history, and we cannot suppose that he neglected the opportunity.
The Gospel was written before the book of Acts, which expressly refers to it as the first treatise inscribed to the same Theophilus (Acts 1:1). As the Acts come down to the second year of Paul’s captivity in Rome, they cannot have been finished before a.d. 63; but as they abruptly break off without any mention of Paul’s release or martyrdom, it seems quite probable that they were concluded before the fate of the apostle was decided one way or the other, unless the writer was, like Mark, prevented by some event, perhaps the Neronian persecution, from giving his book the natural conclusion. In its present shape it excites in the reader the greatest curiosity which could have been gratified with a few words, either that the apostle sealed his testimony with his blood, or that he entered upon new missionary tours East and West until at last he finished his course after a second captivity in Rome. I may add that the entire absence of any allusion in the Acts to any of Paul’s Epistles can be easily explained by the assumption of a nearly contemporaneous composition, while it seems almost unaccountable if we assume an interval of ten or twenty years.
Luke’s ignorance of Matthew and probably also of Mark points likewise to an early date of composition. A careful investigator, like Luke, writing after the year 70, could hardly have overlooked, among his many written sources, such an important document as Matthew which the best critics put before a.d. 70.
Clement of Alexandria has preserved a tradition that the Gospels containing the genealogies, i.e., Matthew and Luke, were written first. Irenaeus, it is true, puts the third Gospel after. Matthew and Mark and after the death of Peter and Paul, that is, after 64 (though certainly not after 70). If the Synoptic Gospels were written nearly simultaneously, we can easily account for these differences in the tradition. Irenaeus was no better informed on dates than Clement, and was evidently mistaken about the age of Christ and the date of the Apocalypse. But he may have had in view the time of publication, which must not be confounded with the date of composition. Many books nowadays are withheld from the market for some reason months or years after they have passed through the hands of the printer.

The objections raised against such an early date are not well founded.(162)

The prior existence of a number of fragmentary Gospels implied in Luke 1:1 need not surprise us; for such a story as that of Jesus of Nazareth must have set many pens in motion at a very early time. "Though the art of writing had not existed," says Lange, "it would have been invented for such a theme."

Of more weight is the objection that Luke seems to have shaped the eschatological prophecies of Christ so as to suit the fulfilment by bringing in the besieging (Roman) army, and by interposing "the times of the Gentiles" between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world (Luke 19:43, 44; 21:20–24). This would put the composition after the destruction of Jerusalem, say between 70 and 80, if not later.(163) But such an intentional change of the words of our Lord is inconsistent with the unquestionable honesty of the historian and his reverence for the words of the Divine teacher.(164) Moreover, it is not borne out by the facts. For the other Synoptists likewise speak of wars and the abomination of desolation in the holy place, which refers to the Jewish wars and the Roman eagles (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). Luke makes the Lord say:, Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). But Matthew does the same when he reports that Christ predicted and commanded the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom in all parts of the world before the end can come (Matt. 24:14; 28:19; comp. Mark 16:15). And even Paul said, almost in the same words as Luke, twelve years before the destruction of Jerusalem: "Blindness is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25). Must we therefore put the composition of Romans after a.d. 70? On the other hand, Luke reports as clearly as Matthew and Mark the words of Christ, that "this generation shall not pass away till all things" (the preceding prophecies) "shall be fulfilled" (Luke 21:32). Why did he not omit this passage if he intended to interpose a larger space of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world?

The eschatological discourses of our Lord, then, are essentially the same in all the Synoptists, and present the same difficulties, which can only be removed by assuming: (1) that they refer both to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, two analogous events, the former being typical of the latter; (2) that the two events, widely distant in time, are represented in close proximity of space after the manner of prophetic vision in a panoramic picture. We must also remember that the precise date of the end of the world was expressly disclaimed even by the Son of God in the days of his humiliation (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32), and is consequently beyond the reach of human knowledge and calculation. The only difference is that Luke more clearly distinguishes the two events by dividing the prophetical discourses and assigning them to different occasions (Luke 17:20–37 and 21:5–33); and here, as in other cases, he is probably more exact and in harmony with several hints of our Lord that a considerable interval must elapse between the catastrophe of Jerusalem and the final catastrophe of the world.

Place of Composition.

The third Gospel gives no hint as to the place of composition. Ancient tradition is uncertain, and modern critics are divided between Greece,(165) Alexandria,(166) Ephesus,(167) Caesarea, (168) Rome.(169) It was probably written in sections during the longer residence of the author at Philippi, Caesarea, and Rome, but we cannot tell where it was completed and published.(170)

§ 83. John.

See Literature on John, § 40, of this vol.; Life and Character of John, §§ 41–43, of this vol.; Theology of John, § 72, pp. 549 sqq.

The best comes last. The fourth Gospel is the Gospel of Gospels, the holy of holies in the New Testament. The favorite disciple and bosom friend of Christ, the protector of his mother, the survivor of the apostolic age was pre-eminently qualified by nature and grace to give to the church the inside view of that most wonderful person that ever walked on earth. In his early youth he had absorbed the deepest words of his Master, and treasured them in a faithful heart; in extreme old age, yet with the fire and vigor of manhood, he reproduced them under the influence of the Holy Spirit who dwelt in him and led him, as well as the other disciples, into "the whole truth."

His Gospel is the golden sunset of the age of inspiration, and sheds its lustre into the second and all succeeding centuries of the church. It was written at Ephesus when Jerusalem lay in ruins, when the church had finally separated from the synagogue, when "the Jews" and the Christians were two distinct races, when Jewish and Gentile believers had melted into a homogeneous Christian community, a little band in a hostile world, yet strong in faith, full of hope and joy, and certain of victory.

For a satisfactory discussion of the difficult problems involved in this Gospel and its striking contrast with the Synoptic Gospels, we must keep in view the fact that Christ communed with the apostles after as well as before his visible departure, and spoke to them through that "other Advocate" whom he sent to them from the Father, and who brought to remembrance all things he had said unto them.(171) Here lies the guarantee of the truthfulness of a picture which no human artist could have drawn without divine inspiration. Under any other view the fourth Gospel, and indeed the whole New Testament, becomes the strangest enigma in the history of literature and incapable of any rational solution.

John and the Synoptists.

If John wrote long after the Synoptists, we could, of course, not expect from him a repetition of the story already so well told by three independent witnesses. But what is surprising is the fact that, coming last, he should produce the most original of all the Gospels.

The transition from Matthew to Mark, and from Mark to Luke is easy and natural; but in passing from any of the Synoptists to the fourth Gospel we breathe a different atmosphere, and feel as if we were suddenly translated from a fertile valley to the height of a mountain with a boundless vision over new scenes of beauty and grandeur. We look in vain for a genealogy of Jesus, for an account of his birth, for the sermons of the Baptist, for the history of the temptation in the wilderness, the baptism in the Jordan, and the transfiguration on the Mount, for a list of the Twelve, for the miraculous cures of demoniacs. John says nothing of the institution of the church and the sacraments; though he is full of the mystical union and communion which is the essence of the church, and presents the spiritual meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (John 3 and John 6). He omits the ascension, though it is promised through Mary Magdalene (20:17). He has not a word of the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord’s Prayer, none of the inimitable parables about the kingdom of heaven, none of those telling answers to the entangling questions of the Pharisees. He omits the prophecies of the downfall of Jerusalem and the end of the world, and most of those proverbial, moral sentences and maxims of surpassing wisdom which are strung together by the Synoptists like so many sparkling diamonds.

But in the place of these Synoptical records John gives us an abundance of new matter of equal, if not greater, interest and importance. Right at the threshold we are startled, as by a peal of thunder from the depths, of eternity: "In the beginning was the Word." And as we proceed we hear about the creation of the world, the shining of the true light in darkness, the preparatory revelations, the incarnation of the Logos, the testimony of the Baptist to the Lamb of God. We listen with increasing wonder to those mysterious discourses about the new birth of the Spirit, the water of life, the bread of life from heaven, about the relation of the eternal and only-begotten Son to the Father, to the world, and to believers, the mission of the Holy Spirit, the promise of the many mansions in heaven, the farewell to the disciples, and at last that sacerdotal prayer which brings us nearest to the throne and the beating heart of God. John alone reports the interviews with Nicodemus, the woman of Samaria, and the Greek foreigners. He records six miracles not mentioned by the Synoptists, and among them the two greatest—the changing of water into wine and the raising of Lazarus from the grave. And where he meets the Synoptists, as in the feeding of the five thousand, he adds the mysterious discourse on the spiritual feeding of believers by the bread of life which has been going on ever since. He makes the nearest approach to his predecessors in the closing chapters on the betrayal, the denial of Peter, the trial before the ecclesiastical and civil tribunals, the crucifixion and resurrection, but even here he is more exact and circumstantial, and adds, interesting details which bear the unmistakable marks of personal observation.

He fills out the ministry of Christ in Judaea, among the hierarchy and the people of Jerusalem, and extends it over three years; while the Synoptists seem to confine it to one year and dwell chiefly on his labors among the peasantry of Galilee. But on close inspection John leaves ample room for the Galilaean, and the Synoptists for the Judaean ministry. None of the Gospels is a complete biography. John expressly disclaims, this (20:31). Matthew implies repeated visits to the holy city when he makes Christ exclaim: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often would I have gathered thy children together" (23:37; comp. 27:57). On the other hand John records several miracles in Cana, evidently only as typical examples of many (2:1 sqq.; 4:47 sqq.; 6:1 sqq.). But in Jerusalem the great conflict between light and darkness, belief and unbelief, was most fully developed and matured to the final crisis; and this it was one of his chief objects to describe.

The differences between John and the Synoptists are many and great, but there are no contradictions.

The Occasion.

Irenaeus, who, as a native of Asia Minor and a spiritual grand-pupil of John, is entitled to special consideration, says: "Afterward" [i.e., after Matthew, Mark, and Luke] "John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."(172) In another place he makes the rise of the Gnostic heresy the prompting occasion of the composition.(173)

A curious tradition, which probably contains a grain of truth, traces the composition to a request of John’s fellow-disciples and elders of Ephesus. "Fast with me," said John, according to the Muratorian fragment (170), "for three days from this time" [when the request was made], "and whatever shall be revealed to each of us" [concerning my composing the Gospel], "let us relate it to one another. On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should relate all things in his own name, aided by the revision of all.(174) ... What wonder is it then that John brings forward every detail with so much emphasis, even in his Epistles, saying of himself, What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things have we written unto you. For so he professes that he was not only an eyewitness, but also a hearer, and moreover a writer of all the wonderful works of the Lord in their historical order."(175)

The mention of Andrew in this fragment is remarkable, for he was associated with John as a pupil of the Baptist and as the first called to the school of Christ (John 1:35–40). He was also prominent in other ways and stood next to the beloved three, or even next to his brother Peter in the catalogues of the apostles.(176)

Victorinus of Pettau (d. about 304), in the Scholia on the Apocalypse, says that John wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse, in consequence of the spread of the Gnostic heresy and at the request of "all the bishops from the neighboring provinces."(177)

Jerome, on the basis of a similar tradition, reports that John, being constrained by his brethren to write, consented to do so if all joined in a fast and prayer to God, and after this fast, being saturated with revelation (revelatione saturatus), he indited the heaven-sent preface: "In the beginning was the Word."(178)

Possibly those fellow-disciples and pupils who prompted John to write his Gospel, were the same who afterward added their testimony to the genuineness of the book, speaking in the plural ("we know that his witness is true," 21:24), one of them acting as scribe ("I suppose," 21:25).

The outward occasion does not exclude, of course, the inward prompting by the Holy Spirit, which is in fact implied in this tradition, but it shows how far the ancient church was from such a mechanical theory of inspiration as ignores or denies the human and natural factors in the composition of the apostolic writings. The preface of Luke proves the same.

The Object.

The fourth Gospel does not aim at a complete biography of Christ, but distinctly declares that Jesus wrought "many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book" (John 20:30; comp. 21:25).

The author plainly states his object, to which all other objects must be subordinate as merely incidental, namely, to lead his readers to the faith "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they may have life in his name" (20:31). This includes three points: (1) the Messiahship of Jesus, which was of prime importance to the Jews, and was the sole or at least the chief aim of Matthew, the Jewish Evangelist; (2) the Divine Sonship of Jesus, which was the point to be gained with the Gentiles, and which Luke, the Gentile Evangelist, had also in view; (3) the practical benefit of such faith, to gain true, spiritual, eternal life in Him and through Him who is the personal embodiment and source of eternal life.

To this historico-didactic object all others which have been mentioned must be subordinated. The book is neither polemic and apologetic, nor supplementary, nor irenic, except incidentally and unintentionally as it serves all these purposes. The writer wrote in full view of the condition and needs of the church at the close of the first century, and shaped his record accordingly, taking for granted a general knowledge of the older Gospels, and refuting indirectly, by the statement of facts and truths, the errors of the day. Hence there is some measure of truth in those theories which have made an incidental aim the chief or only aim of the book.

The anti-heretical theory was started by Irenaeus. Being himself absorbed in the controversy with Gnosticism and finding the strongest weapons in John, he thought that John’s motive was to root out the error of Cerinthus and of the Nicolaitans by showing that "there is one God who made all things by his word; and not, as they say, one who made the world, and another, the Father of the Lord."(179) Jerome adds the opposite error of Ebionism, Ewald that of the disciples of the Baptist.

No doubt the fourth Gospel, by the positive statement of the truth, is the most effective refutation of Gnostic dualism and doketism, which began to raise its head in Asia Minor toward the close of the first century. It shows the harmony of the ideal Christ of faith and the real Christ of history, which the ancient and modern schools of Gnosticism are unable to unite in one individual. But it is not on this account a polemical treatise, and it even had by its profound speculation a special attraction for Gnostics and philosophical rationalists, from Basilides down to Baur. The ancient Gnostics made the first use of it and quoted freely from the prologue, e.g., the passage: "The true light, which enlighteneth every man, was coming into the world" (1:9).(180)

The polemical aim is more apparent in the first Epistle of John, which directly warns against the anti-Christian errors then threatening the church, and may be called a doctrinal and practical postscript to the Gospel.

The supplementary theory. Clement of Alexandria (about 200) states, on the authority of "presbyters of an earlier generation," that John, at the request of his friends and the prompting of the divine Spirit, added a spiritual Gospel to the older bodily Gospels which set forth the outward facts.(181) The distinction is ingenious. John is more spiritual and ideal than the Synoptists, and he represents as it were the esoteric tradition as distinct from the exoteric tradition of the church. Eusebius records also as a current opinion that John intended to supply an amount of the earlier period of Christ’s ministry which was omitted by the other Evangelists.(182) John is undoubtedly a most welcome supplementer both in matter and spirit, and furnishes in part the key for the full understanding of the Synoptists, yet he repeats many important events, especially in the closing chapters, and his Gospel is as complete as any.(183)
The Irenic tendency-theory is a modern Tübingen invention. It is assumed that the fourth Gospel is purely speculative or theological, the last and crowning literary production which completed the process of unifying Jewish and Gentile Christianity and melting them into the one Catholic church of the second century.

No doubt it is an Irenicon of the church in the highest and best sense of the term, and a prophecy of the church of the future, when all discords of Christendom past and present will be harmonized in the perfect union of Christians with Christ, which is the last object of his sacerdotal prayer. But it is not an Irenicon at the expense of truth and facts.

In carrying out their hypothesis the Tübingen critics have resorted to the wildest fictions. It is said that the author depreciated the Mosaic dispensation and displayed jealousy of Peter. How in the world could this promote peace? It would rather have defeated the object. But there is no shadow of proof for such an assertion. While the author opposes the unbelieving Jews, he shows the highest reverence for the Old Testament, and derives salvation from the Jews. Instead of showing jealousy of Peter, he introduces his new name at the first interview with Jesus (1:42), reports his great confession even more fully than Matthew (John 6:68, 69), puts him at the head of the list of the apostles (21:2), and gives him his due prominence throughout down to the last interview when the risen Lord committed to him the feeding of his sheep (21:15–19). This misrepresentation is of a piece with the other Tübingen myth adopted by Renan, that the real John in the Apocalypse pursues a polemical aim against Paul and deliberately excludes him from the rank of the twelve Apostles. And yet Paul himself, in the acknowledged Epistle to the Galatians, represents John as one of the three pillar-apostles who recognized his peculiar gift for the apostolate of the Gentiles and extended to him the right hand of fellowship.

Analysis.

The object of John determined the selection and arrangement of the material. His plan is more clear and systematic than that of the Synoptists. It brings out the growing conflict between belief and unbelief, between light and darkness, and leads step by step to the great crisis of the cross, and to the concluding exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God."

In the following analysis the sections peculiar to John are marked by a star.

*I. The Prologue. The theme of the Gospel: the Logos, the eternal Revealer of God:

(1.) In relation to God, John 1:1, 2.

(2.) In relation to the world. General revelation, 1:3–5.

(3.) In relation to John the Baptist and the Jews. Particular revelation, 1:6–13.

(4.) The incarnation of the Logos, and its effect upon the disciples, 1:14–18.

The Public Manifestation of the Incarnate Logos in Active Word and Work, 1:19 to 12:50.

*(1.) The preparatory testimony of John the Baptist pointing to Jesus as the promised and expected Messiah, and as the Lamb of God that beareth the sin of the world, 1:19–37.

*(2.) The gathering of the first disciples, 1:38–51.

*(3.) The first sign: the changing of water into wine at Cana in Galilee, 2:1–11. First sojourn in Capernaum, 2:12. First Passover and journey to Jerusalem during the public ministry, 2:13.

*(4.) The reformatory cleansing of the Temple, 2:14–22. (Recorded also by the Synoptists, but at the close of the public ministry.) Labors among the Jews in Jerusalem, 2:23–25.

*(5.) Conversation with Nicodemus, representing the timid disciples, the higher classes among the Jews. Regeneration the condition of entering into the kingdom of God, 3:1–15. The love of God in the sending of his Son to save the world, 3:16–21. (Jerusalem.)

*(6.) Labors of Jesus in Judaea. The testimony of John the Baptist: He must increase, but I must decrease, 3:22–36. (Departure of Jesus into Galilee after John’s imprisonment, 4:1–3; comp. Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14.)

*(7.) Labors in Samaria on the journey from Judaea to Galilee. The woman of Samaria; Jacob’s well; the water of life; the worship of God the Spirit in spirit and in truth; the fields ripening for the harvest, John 4:1–42. Jesus teaches publicly in Galilee, 4:43–45 (comp. Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14, 15 Luke 4:14, 15).

*(8.) Jesus again visits Cana in Galilee and heals a nobleman’s son at Capernaum, John 4:46–54.

*(9.) Second journey to Jerusalem at a feast (the second Passover?). The healing of the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath, 5:1–18. Beginning of the hostility of the Jews. Discourse of Christ on his relation to the Father, and his authority to judge the world, 5:19–47.

(10.) The feeding of the five thousand, 6:1–14. The stilling of the tempest, 6:15–21.

*The mysterious discourse in Capernaum on the bread of life; the sifting of the disciples; the confession of Peter: "To whom shall we go," etc.; the hinting at the treason of Judas, 6:22–71.

*(11.) Third visit to Jerusalem, at the feast of the Tabernacles. The hasty request of the brethren of Jesus who did not believe on him. His discourse in the Temple with opposite effect. Rising hostility of the Jews, and vain efforts of the hierarchy to seize him as a false teacher misleading the people, 7:1–52.

[*(12^a.) The woman taken in adultery and pardoned by Jesus, 7:53–8:11. Jerusalem. Probably an interpolation from oral tradition, authentic and true, but not from the pen of John. Also found at the end, and at Luke 21.]

*(12^b.) Discourse on the light of the world. The children of God and the children of the devil. Attempts to stone Jesus, John 8:12–59.

*(13.) The healing of the man born blind, on a Sabbath, and his testimony before the Pharisees, 9:1–41.

*(14.) The parable of the good shepherd, 10:1–21. Speech at the feast of Dedication in Solomon’s porch, 10:22–39. Departure to the country beyond the Jordan, 10:40–42.

*(15.) The resurrection of Lazarus at Bethany, and its effect upon hastening the crisis. The counsel of Caiaphas. Jesus retires from Jerusalem to Ephraim, 11:1–57.

(16.) The anointing by Mary in Bethany, 12:1–8. The counsel of the chief priests, 12:9–11.

(17.) The entry into Jerusalem, 12:12–19. (Comp. Matt. 21:1–17; Mark 11:1–11; Luke 19:29–44.)

*(18.) Visit of the Greeks. Discourse of Jesus on the grain of wheat which must die to bear fruit; the voice from heaven; the attraction of the cross; the opposite effect; reflection of the Evangelist; summary of the speeches of Jesus, John 12:20–50.

The Private Manifestation of Christ in the Circle of his Disciples. During the fourth and last Passover week. Jerusalem, 13:1–17:26.

*(l.) Jesus washes the feet of the disciples before the Passover meal, 13:1–20.

(2.) He announces the traitor, 13:21–27. The departure of Judas, 13:27–30.

*(3.) The new commandment of love, 13:31–35. (Here is the best place for the institution of the Lord’s Supper, omitted by John, but reported by all the Synoptists and by Paul.)

(4.) Prophecy of Peter’s denial, 13:36–38.

*(5.) The farewell discourses to the disciples; the promise of the Paraclete, and of Christ’s return, 14:1 – 16:33.

*(6.) The Sacerdotal Prayer, 17:1–26.

The Glorification of Christ in the Crucifixion and Resurrection, 18:1–20:31.

(1.) The passage over the Kedron, and the betrayal, 18:1–11.

(2.) Jesus before the high priests, Annas and Caiaphas, 18:12–14, 19–24.

(3.) Peter’s denial, 18:15–18, 25–27.

(4.) Jesus before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, 18:28–19:16. Original in part (19:4–16).

(5.) The crucifixion, 19:17–37.

(6.) The burial of Jesus, 19:38–42.

(7.) The resurrection. Mary Magdalene, Peter and John visit the empty tomb, 20:1–10.

(8.) Christ appears to Mary Magdalene, 20:11–18.

*(9.) Christ appears to the apostles, except Thomas, on the evening of the resurrection day, 20:19–23.

*(10.) Christ appears to the apostles, including Thomas, on the following Lord’s Day, 20:26–29.

*(11.) Object of the Gospel, 20:30, 31

*V. The Appendix and Epilogue, 21:1–25.

(1.) Christ appears to seven disciples on the lake of Galilee. The third manifestation to the disciples, 21:1–14.

(2.) The dialogue with Simon Peter: "Lovest thou Me?" "Feed My sheep." "Follow Me," 21:15–19.

(3.) The mysterious word about the beloved disciple, 21:1–23.

(4.) The attestation of the authorship of the Gospel by the pupils of John, 21:24, 25.

Characteristics of the Fourth Gospel.

The Gospel of John is the most original, the most important, the most influential book in all literature. The great Origen called it the crown of the Gospels, as the Gospels are the crown of all sacred writings.(184) It is pre-eminently the spiritual and ideal, though at the same time a most real Gospel, the truest transcript of the original. It lifts the veil from the holy of holies and reveals the glory of the Only Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. It unites in harmony the deepest knowledge and the purest love of Christ. We hear as it were his beating heart; we lay our hands in his wound-prints and exclaim with doubting Thomas: "My Lord and my God." No book is so plain and yet so deep, so natural and yet so full of mystery. It is simple as a child and sublime as a seraph, gentle as a lamb and bold as an eagle, deep as the sea and high as the heavens.

It has been praised as "the unique, tender, genuine Gospel," "written by the hand of an angel," as "the heart of Christ," as "God’s love-letter to the world," or "Christ’s love-letter to the church." It has exerted an irresistible charm on many of the strongest and noblest minds in Christendom, as Origen in Egypt, Chrysostom in Asia, Augustin in Africa, the German Luther, the French Calvin, the poetic Herder, the critical Schleiermacher, and a multitude of less famous writers of all schools and shades of thought. Even many of those who doubt or deny the apostolic authorship cannot help admiring its more than earthly beauties.(185)

But there are other sceptics who find the Johannean discourses monotonous, tedious, nebulous, unmeaning, hard, and feel as much offended by them as the original hearers.(186)

Let us point out the chief characteristics of this book which distinguish it from the Synoptical Gospels.

The fourth Gospel is the Gospel of the Incarnation, that is, of the perfect union of the divine and human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who for this very reason is the Saviour of the world and the fountain of eternal life. "The Word became flesh." This is the theoretical theme. The writer begins with the eternal pre-existence of the Logos, and ends with the adoration of his incarnate divinity in the exclamation of the sceptical Thomas: "My Lord and my God!" Luke’s preface is historiographic and simply points to his sources of information; John’s prologue is metaphysical and dogmatic, and sounds the keynote of the subsequent history. The Synoptists begin with the man Jesus and rise up to the recognition of his Messiahship and divine Sonship; John descends from the pre-existent Son of God through the preparatory revelations to his incarnation and crucifixion till he resumes the glory which he had before the world began. The former give us the history of a divine man, the latter the history of a human God. Not that he identifies him with the Godhead (oJ qeov"); on the contrary, he clearly distinguishes the Son and the Father and makes him inferior in dignity ("the Father is greater than I"); but he declares that the Son is "God" (qeov"), that is, of divine essence or nature.

And yet there is no contradiction here between the Evangelists except for those who deem a union of the Divine and human in one person an impossibility. The Christian Church has always felt that the Synoptic and the Johannean Christ are one and the same, only represented from different points of view. And in this judgment the greatest scholars and keenest critics, from Origen down to the present time, have concurred.

For, on the one hand, John’s Christ is just as real and truly human as that of the Synoptists. He calls himself the Son of man and "a man" (John 8:40); he "groaned in the spirit" (11:33), he "wept" at the grave of a friend (11:35), and his "soul" was "troubled" in the prospect of the dark hour of crucifixion (12:27) and the crime of the traitor (13:1). The Evangelist attests with solemn emphasis from what he saw with his own eyes that Jesus truly suffered and died (19:33–35).(187)

The Synoptic Christ, on the other hand, is as truly elevated above ordinary mortals as the Johannean. It is true, he does not in so many words declare his pre-existence as in John 1:1; 6:62; 8:58; 17:5, 24, but it is implied, or follows as a legitimate consequence. He is conceived without sin, a descendant of David, and yet the Lord of David (Matt. 22:41); he claims authority to forgive sins, for which he is accused of blasphemy by the Jews (quite consistently from their standpoint of unbelief); he gives his life a ransom for the redemption of the world; he will come in his glory and judge all nations; yea, in the very Sermon on the Mount, which all schools of Rationalists accept his genuine teaching, He declares himself to be the judge of the world (Matt. 7:21–23; comp. 25:31–46), and in the baptismal formula He associates himself and the Holy Spirit with the eternal Father, as the connecting link between the two, thus assuming a place on the very throne of the Deity (28:19). It is impossible to rise higher. Hence Matthew, the Jewish Evangelist, does not hesitate to apply to Him the name Immanuel, that is, "God with us"(1:23). Mark gives us the Gospel of Peter, the first who confessed that Jesus is not only "the Christ" in his official character, but also "the Son of the living God." This is far more than a son; it designates his unique personal relation to God and forms the eternal basis of his historical Messiahship (Matt. 16:16; comp. 26:63). The two titles are distinct, and the high priest’s charge of blasphemy (26:65) could only apply to the latter. A false Messiah would be an impostor, not a blasphemer. We could not substitute the Messiah for the Son in the baptismal formula. Peter, Mark, and Matthew were brought up in the most orthodox monotheism, with an instinctive horror of the least approach to idolatry, and yet they looked up to their Master with feelings of adoration. And, as for Luke, he delights in representing Jesus throughout as the sinless Saviour of sinners, and is in full sympathy with the theology of his elder brother Paul, who certainly taught the pre-existence and divine nature of Christ several years before the Gospels were written or published (Rom. 1:3, 4; 9:5; 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 1:15–17; Phil. 2:6–11).

It is the Gospel of Love. Its practical motto is: "God is love." In the incarnation of the eternal Word, in the historic mission of his Son, God has given the greatest possible proof of his love to mankind. In the fourth Gospel alone we read that precious sentence which contains the very essence of Christianity: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). It is the Gospel of the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep (10:11); the Gospel of the new commandment: "Love one another" (13:34). And this was the last exhortation of the aged disciple "whom Jesus loved."

But for this very reason that Christ is the greatest gift of God to the world, unbelief is the greatest sin and blackest ingratitude, which carries in it its own condemnation. The guilt of unbelief, the contrast between faith and unbelief is nowhere set forth in such strong light as in the fourth Gospel. It is a consuming fire to all enemies of Christ.

It is the Gospel of Mystic Symbolism.(188) The eight miracles it records are significant "signs" (shmei'a) which symbolize the character and mission of Christ, and manifest his glory. They are simply his "works" (e[rga), the natural manifestations of his marvellous person performed with the same ease as men perform their ordinary works. The turning of water into wine illustrates his transforming power, and fitly introduces his public ministry; the miraculous feeding of the five thousand set him forth as the Bread of life for the spiritual nourishment of countless believers; the healing of the man born blind, as the Light of the world; the raising of Lazarus, as the Resurrection and the Life. The miraculous draught of fishes shows the disciples to be fishers of men, and insures the abundant results of Christian labor to the end of time. The serpent in the wilderness prefigured the cross. The Baptist points to him as the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. He represents himself under the significant figures of the Door, the good Shepherd, the Vine; and these figures have inspired Christian art and poetry, and guided the meditations of the church ever since.

The whole Old Testament is a type and prophecy of the New. "The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (1:17). Herein lies the vast superiority of Christianity, and yet the great importance of Judaism as an essential part in the scheme of redemption. Clearly and strongly as John brings out the opposition to the unbelieving Jews, he is yet far from going to the Gnostic extreme of rejecting or depreciating the Old Testament; on the contrary "salvation comes from the Jews" (says Christ to the Samaritan woman, 4:22); and turning the Scripture argument against the scribes and Pharisees who searched the letter of the Scriptures, but ignored the spirit, Christ confronts them with the authority of Moses on whom they fixed their hope. "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (5:46). John sees Christ everywhere in those ancient Scriptures which cannot be broken. He unfolds the true Messianic idea in conflict with the carnal perversion of it among the Jews under the guidance of the hierarchy.

The Johannean and Synoptic Discourses of Christ.

John gives prominence to the transcendent Discourses about the person of Christ and his relation to the Father, to the world, and the disciples. His words are testimonies, revealing the inner glory of his person; they are Spirit and they are life.

Matthew’s Gospel is likewise didactic; but there is a marked difference between the contents and style of the Synoptic and the Johannean discourses of Jesus. The former discuss the nature of the Messianic kingdom, the fulfilment of the law, the duty of holy obedience, and are popular, practical, brief, pointed, sententious, parabolic, and proverbial; the latter touch the deepest mysteries of theology and Christology, are metaphysical, lengthy, liable to carnal misunderstanding, and scarcely discernible from John’s own style in the prologue and the first Epistle, and from that used by the Baptist. The transition is almost imperceptible in John 3:16 and 3:31.

Here we reach the chief difficulty in the Johannean problem. Here is the strong point of sceptical criticism. We must freely admit at the outset that John so reproduced the words of his Master as to mould them unconsciously into his own type of thought and expression. He revolved them again and again in his heart, they were his daily food, and the burden of his teaching to the churches from Sunday to Sunday; yet he had to translate, to condense, to expand, and to apply them; and in this process it was unavoidable that his own reflections should more or less mingle with his recollections. With all the tenacity of his memory it was impossible that at such a great interval of time (fifty or sixty years after the events) he should be able to record literally every discourse just as it was spoken; and he makes no such claim, but intimates that he selects and summarizes.

This is the natural view of the case, and the same concession is now made by all the champions of the Johannean authorship who do not hold to a magical inspiration theory and turn the sacred writers into unthinking machines, contrary to their own express statements, as in the Preface of Luke. But we deny that this concession involves any sacrifice of the truth of history or of any lineament from the physiognomy of Christ. The difficulty here presented is usually overstated by the critics, and becomes less and less, the higher we rise in our estimation of Christ, and the closer we examine the differences in their proper connection. The following reflections will aid the student:

In the first place we must remember the marvellous heighth and depth and breadth of Christ’s intellect as it appears in the Synoptists as well as in John. He commanded the whole domain of religious and moral truth; he spake as never man spake, and the people were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28, 29; Mark 1:22; 6:2; Luke 4:32; John 7:46). He addressed not only his own generation, but through it all ages and classes of men. No wonder that his hearers often misunderstood him. The Synoptists give examples of such misunderstanding as well as John (comp. Mark 8:16). But who will set limits to his power and paedagogic wisdom in the matter and form of his teaching? Must he not necessarily have varied his style when he addressed the common people in Galilee, as in the Synoptists, and the educated, proud, hierarchy of Jerusalem, as in John? Or when he spoke on the mountain, inviting the multitude to the Messianic Kingdom at the opening of his ministry, and when he took farewell from his disciples in the chamber, in view of the great sacrifice? Socrates appears very different in Xenophon and in Plato, yet we can see him in both. But here is a far greater than Socrates.(189)
John’s mind, at a period when it was most pliable and plastic, had been so conformed to the mind of Christ that his own thoughts and words faithfully reflected the teaching of his Master. If there ever was spiritual sympathy and congeniality between two minds, it was between Jesus and the disciple whom he loved and whom he intrusted with the care of his mother. John stood nearer to his Lord than any Christian or any of the Synoptists. "Why should not John have been formed upon the model of Jesus rather than the Jesus of his Gospel be the reflected image of himself? Surely it may be left to all candid minds to say whether, to adopt only the lowest supposition, the creative intellect of Jesus was not far more likely to mould His disciple to a conformity with itself, than the receptive spirit of the disciple to give birth by its own efforts to that conception of a Redeemer which so infinitely surpasses the loftiest image of man’s own creation."(190)
John reproduced the discourses from the fulness of the spirit of Christ that dwelt in him, and therefore without any departure from the ideas. The whole gospel history assumes that Christ did not finish, but only began his work while on earth, that he carries it on in heaven through his chosen organs, to whom he promised mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:15; Matt. 10:19) and his constant presence (Matt. 19:20; 28:20). The disciples became more and more convinced of the superhuman character of Christ by the irresistible logic of fact and thought. His earthly life appeared to them as a transient state of humiliation which was preceded by a pre-existent state of glory with the Father, as it was followed by a permanent state of glory after the resurrection and ascension to heaven. He withheld from them "many things" because they could not bear them before his glorification (John 16:12). "What I do," he said to Peter, "thou knowest not now, but thou shalt come to know hereafter" (13:7). Some of his deepest sayings, which they had at first misunderstood, were illuminated by the resurrection (2:22; 12:16), and then by the outpouring of the Spirit, who took things out of the fulness of Christ and declared them to the disciples (16:13, 14). Hence the farewell discourses are so full of the Promises of the Spirit of truth who would glorify Christ in their hearts. Under such guidance we may be perfectly sure of the substantial faithfulness of John’s record.
Beneath the surface of the similarity there is a considerable difference between the language of Christ and the language of his disciple. John never attributes to Christ the designation Logos, which he uses so prominently in the Prologue and the first Epistle. This is very significant, and shows his conscientious care. He distinguished his own theology from the teaching of his Master, no matter whether he borrowed the term Logos from Philo (which cannot be proven), or coined it himself from his reflections on Old Testament distinctions between the hidden and the revealed God and Christ’s own testimonies concerning his relation to the Father. The first Epistle of John is an echo of his Gospel, but with original matter of his own and Polemical references to the anti-Christian errors of big day. "The phrases of the Gospel," says Westcott, "have a definite historic connection: they belong to circumstances which explain them. The phrases in the Epistle are in part generalizations, and in part interpretations of the earlier language in view of Christ’s completed work and of the experience of the Christian church."

As to the speeches of the Baptist, in the fourth Gospel, they keep, as the same writer remarks, strictly within the limits suggested by the Old Testament. "What he says spontaneously of Christ is summed up in the two figures of the ’Lamb’ and the ’Bridegroom,’ which together give a comprehensive view of the suffering and joy, the redemptive and the completive work of Messiah under prophetic imagery. Both figures appear again in the Apocalypse; but it is very significant that they do not occur in the Lord’s teaching in the fourth Gospel or in St. John’s Epistles."

There are not wanting striking resemblances in thought and style between the discourses in John and in the Synoptists, especially Matthew, which are sufficient to refute the assertion that the two types of teaching are irreconcilable.(191) The Synoptists were not quite unfamiliar with the other type of teaching. They occasionally rise to the spiritual height of John and record briefer sayings of Jesus which could be inserted without a discord in his Gospel. Take the prayer of thanksgiving and the touching invitation to all that labor and are heavy laden, in Matt. 11:25–30. The sublime declaration recorded by Luke 10:22 and Matthew 11:27: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him," is thoroughly Christ-like according to John’s conception, and is the basis of his own declaration in the prologue: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"(John 1:18). Jesus makes no higher claim in John than he does in Matthew when he proclaims: "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). In almost the same words Jesus says in John 17:2: "Thou hast given him power over all flesh."

On the other hand, John gives us not a few specimens of those short, pithy maxims of oriental wisdom which characterize the Synoptic discourses.(192)

The Style of the Gospel of John.

The style of the fourth Gospel differs widely from the ecclesiastical writers of the second century, and belongs to the apostolic age. It has none of the technical theological terms of post-apostolic controversies, no allusions to the state of the church, its government and worship, but moves in the atmosphere of the first Christian generation; yet differs widely from the style of the Synoptists and is altogether unique in the history of secular and religious literature, a fit expression of the genius of John: clear and deep, simple as a child, and mature as a saint, sad and yet serene, and basking in the sunshine of eternal life and love. The fourth Gospel is pure Greek in vocabulary and grammar, but thoroughly Hebrew in temper and spirit, even more so than any other book, and can be almost literally translated into Hebrew without losing its force or beauty. It has the childlike simplicity, the artlessness, the imaginativeness, the directness, the circumstantiality, and the rhythmical parallelism which characterize the writings of the Old Testament. The sentences are short and weighty, coordinated, not subordinated. The construction is exceedingly simple: no involved periods, no connecting links, no logical argumentation, but a succession of self-evident truths declared as from immediate intuition. The parallelism of Hebrew poetry is very apparent in such double sentences as: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you;" "A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him;" "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that hath been made." Examples of antithetic parallelism are also frequent: "The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" "He was in the world, and the world knew him not;" "He confessed, and denied not;" "I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish."

The author has a limited vocabulary, but loves emphatic repetition, and his very monotony is solemn and impressive. He uses certain key-words of the profoundest import, as Word, life, light, truth, love, glory, testimony, name, sign, work, to know, to behold, to believe. These are not abstract conceptions but concrete realities. He views the world under comprehensive contrasts, as life and death, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hatred, God and the devil, and (in the first Epistle) Christ and Antichrist.

He avoids the optative, and all argumentative particles, but uses very frequently the simple particles kaiv, dev, ou|n, i{na. His most characteristic particle in the narrative portions is "therefore" (ou|n¼, which i" with him not syllogistic »like a[ra and its compounds), but indicative simply of continuation and retrospect (like "so" and "then" or the German "nun"), yet with the idea that nothing happens without a cause; while the particle "in order that" (i{na) indicates that nothing happens without a purpose. He avoids the relative pronoun and prefers the connecting "and" with the repetition of the noun, as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .... In him was life, and the life was the light of men." The "and" sometimes takes the place of "but," as "The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not" (John 1:5).

We look in vain for such important words as church, gospel, repentance (metavnoia), but the substance is there in different forms. He does not even use the noun "faith" (pivsti"), which frequently occurs in the Synoptists and in Paul, but he uses the verb "to believe" (pisteuvein) ninety-eight times, about twice as often as all three Synoptists together.

He applies the significant term Logos (ratio and oratio) to Christ as the Revealer and the Interpreter of God (1:18), but only in the Prologue, and such figurative designations as "the Light of the world," "the Bread of life," "the Good Shepherd," "the Vine," "the Way," "the Truth," and "the Life." He alone uses the double "Verily" in the discourses of the Saviour. He calls the Holy Spirit the "Paraclete" or "Advocate" of believers, who pleads their cause here on earth, as Christ pleads it on the throne in heaven. There breathes through this book an air of calmness and serenity, of peace and repose, that seems to come from the eternal mansions of heaven.(193)

Is such a style compatible with the hypothesis of a post- and pseudo-apostolic fiction? We have a large number of fictitious Gospels, but they differ as much from the fourth canonical Gospel as midnight darkness from noonday brightness.

Authorship.

For nearly eighteen centuries the Christian church of all denominations has enjoyed the fourth Gospel without a shadow of doubt that it was the work of John the Apostle. But in the nineteenth century the citadel was assailed with increasing force, and the conflict between the besiegers and defenders is still raging among scholars of the highest ability. It is a question of life and death between constructive and destructive criticism. The vindication of the fourth Gospel as a genuine product of John, the beloved disciple, is the death-blow of the mythical and legendary reconstruction and destruction of the life of Christ and the apostolic history. The ultimate result cannot be doubtful. The opponents have been forced gradually to retreat from the year 170 to the very beginning of the second century, as the time when the fourth Gospel was already known and used in the church, that is to the lifetime of many pupils and friends of John and other eye-witnesses of the life of Christ.(194)

I. The External Proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies. There is but one dissenting voice, hardly audible, that of the insignificant sect of the Alogi who opposed the Johannean doctrine of the Logos (hence their name, with the double meaning of unreasonable, and anti-Logos heretics) and absurdly ascribed both the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse to his enemy, the Gnostic Cerinthus.(195) Let us briefly sum up the chief testimonies.

Catholic testimonies. We begin at the fourth century and gradually rise up to the age of John. All the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, including the Sinaitic and the Vatican, which date from the age of Constantine and are based upon older copies of the second century, and all the ancient versions, including the Syriac and old Latin from the third and second centuries, contain without exception the Gospel of John, though the Peshito omits his second and third Epistles and the Apocalypse. These manuscripts and versions represent the universal voice of the churches.

Then we have the admitted individual testimonies of all the Greek and Latin fathers up to the middle of the second century, without a dissenting voice or doubt: Jerome (d. 419) and Eusebius (d. 340), who had the whole ante-Nicene literature before them; Origen in Egypt (d. 254), the greatest scholar of his age and a commentator on John; Tertullian of North Africa (about 200), a Catholic in doctrine, a Montanist in discipline, and a zealous advocate of the dispensation of the Paraclete announced by John; Clement of Alexandria (about 190), a cultivated philosopher who had travelled in Greece, Italy, Syria, and Palestine, seeking religious instruction everywhere; Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor and from 178 bishop of Lyons, a pupil of Polycarp and a grand-pupil of John himself, who derived his chief ammunition against the Gnostic heresy from the fourth Gospel, and represents the four canonical Gospels—no more and no less—as universally accepted by the churches of his time; Theophilus of Antioch (180), who expressly quotes from the fourth Gospel under the name of John;(196) the Muratorian Canon (170), which reports the occasion of the composition of John’s Gospel by urgent request of his friends and disciples; Tatian of Syria (155–170), who in his "Address to the Greeks" repeatedly quotes the fourth Gospel, though without naming the author, and who began his, "Diatessaron"—once widely spread in the church notwithstanding the somewhat Gnostic leanings of the author, and commented on by Ephraem of Syria—with the prologue of John.(197) From him we have but one step to his teacher, Justin Martyr, a native of Palestine (103–166), and a bold and noble-minded defender of the faith in the reigns of Hadrian and the Antonines. In his two Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he often quotes freely from the four Gospels under the name of Apostolic "Memoirs" or "Memorabilia of the Apostles," which were read at his time in public, worship.(198) He made most use of Matthew, but once at least he quotes a passage on regeneration(199) from Christ’s dialogue with Nicodemus which is recorded only by John. Several other allusions of Justin to John are unmistakable, and his whole doctrine of the pre-existent Logos who sowed precious seeds of truth among Jews and Gentiles before his incarnation, is unquestionably derived from John. To reverse the case is to derive the sunlight from the moon, or the fountain from one of its streams.

But we can go still farther back. The scanty writings of the Apostolic Fathers, so called, have very few allusions to the New Testament, and breathe the atmosphere of the primitive oral tradition. The author of the "Didache" was well acquainted with Matthew. The first Epistle of Clement has strong affinity with Paul. The shorter Epistles of Ignatius show the influence of John’s Christology.(200) Polycarp (d. a.d. 155 in extreme old age), a personal pupil of John, used the First Epistle of John, and thus furnishes an indirect testimony to the Gospel, since both these ’books must stand or fall together.(201) The same is true of Papias (died about 150), who studied with Polycarp, and probably was likewise a bearer of John. He "used testimonies from the former Epistle of John."(202) In enumerating the apostles whose living words he collected in his youth, he places John out of his regular order of precedence, along with Matthew, his fellow-Evangelist, and "Andrew, Peter, and Philip" in the same order as John 1:40–43; from which it has also been inferred that he knew the fourth Gospel. There is some reason to suppose that the disputed section on the woman taken in adultery was recorded by him in illustration of John 8:15; for, according to Eusebius, he mentioned a similar story in his lost work.(203) These facts combined, make it at least extremely probable that Papias was familiar with John.(204) The joint testimony of Polycarp and Papias represents the school of John in the very field of his later labors, and the succession was continued through Polycrates at Ephesus, through Melito at Sardis, through Claudius Apollinaris at Hieropolis, and Pothinus and Irenaeus in Southern Gaul. It is simply incredible that a spurious Gospel should have been smuggled into the churches under the name of their revered spiritual father and grandfather.

Finally, the concluding verse of the appendix, John 21:24, is a still older testimony of a number of personal friends and pupils of John, perhaps the very persons who, according to ancient tradition, urged him to write the Gospel. The book probably closed with the sentence: "This is the disciple who beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things." To this the elders add their attestation in the plural: "And we know that his witness is true." A literary fiction would not have been benefited by an anonymous postscript. The words as they, stand are either a false testimony of the pseudo-John, or the true testimony of the friends of the real John who first received his book and published it before or after his death.

The voice of the whole Catholic church, so far as it is heard, on the subject at all, is in favor of the authorship of John. There is not a shadow of proof to the contrary opinion except one, and that is purely negative and inconclusive. Baur to the very last laid the greatest stress on the entangled paschal controversy of the second century as a proof that John could not have written the fourth Gospel because he was quoted as an authority for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the 14th of Nisan; while the fourth Gospel, in flat contradiction to the Synoptists, puts the crucifixion on that day (instead of the 15th), and represents Christ as the true paschal lamb slain at the very time when the typical Jewish passover was slain. But, in the first place, some of the ablest scholars know how to reconcile John with the Synoptic date of the crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan; and, secondly, there is no evidence at all that the apostle John celebrated Easter with the Quartodecimans on the 14th of Nisan in commemoration of the day of the Lord’s Supper. The controversy was between conforming the celebration of the Christian Passover to the day of the month, that is to Jewish chronology, or to the day of the week on which Christ died. The former would have made Easter, more conveniently, a fixed festival like the Jewish Passover, the latter or Roman practice made it a movable feast, and this practice triumphed at the Council of Nicaea.(205)

2. Heretical testimonies. They all the more important in view of their dissent from Catholic doctrine. It is remarkable that the heretics seem to have used and commented on the fourth Gospel even before the Catholic writers. The Clementine Homilies, besides several allusions, very clearly quote from the story of the man born blind, John 9:2, 3.(206) The Gnostics of the second century, especially the Valentinians and Basilidians, made abundant use of the fourth Gospel, which alternately offended them by its historical realism, and attracted them by its idealism and mysticism. Heracleon, a pupil of Valentinus, wrote a commentary on it, of which Origen has preserved large extracts; Valentinus himself (according to Tertullian) tried either to explain it away, or he put his own meaning into it. Basilides, who flourished about a.d. 125, quoted from the Gospel of John such passages as the "true light, which enlighteneth every man was coming into the world" (John 1:9), and, my hour is not yet come "(2:4).(207)

These heretical testimonies are almost decisive by themselves. The Gnostics would rather have rejected the fourth Gospel altogether, as Marcion actually did, from doctrinal objection. They certainly would not have received it from the Catholic church, as little as the church would have received it from the Gnostics. The concurrent reception of the Gospel by both at so early a date is conclusive evidence of its genuineness. "The Gnostics of that date," says Dr. Abbot,(208) "received it because they could not help it. They would not have admitted the authority of a book which could be reconciled with their doctrines only by the most forced interpretation, if they could have destroyed its authority by denying its genuineness. Its genuineness could then be easily ascertained. Ephesus was one of the principal cities of the Eastern world, the centre of extensive commerce, the metropolis of Asia Minor. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people were living who had known the apostle John. The question whether he, the beloved disciple, had committed to writing his recollections of his Master’s life and teaching, was one of the greatest interest. The fact of the reception of the fourth Gospel as his work at so early a date, by parties so violently opposed to each other, proves that the evidence of its genuineness was decisive. This argument is further confirmed by the use of the Gospel by the opposing parties in the later Montanistic controversy, and in the disputes about the time of celebrating Easter."

3. Heathen testimony. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, which was written about a.d. 178 (according to Keim, who reconstructed it from the fragments preserved in the refutation of Origen), derives his matter for attack from the four Gospels, though he does not name their authors, and he refers to several details which are peculiar to John, as, among others, the blood which flowed from the body of Jesus at his crucifixion (John 19:34), and the fact that Christ "after his death arose and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced" (20:25, 27).(209)

The radical assertion of Baur that no distinct trace of the fourth Gospel can be found before the last quarter of the second century has utterly broken down, and his own best pupils have been forced to make one concession after another as the successive discoveries of the many Gnostic quotations in the Philosophumena, the last book of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, the Syrian Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, revealed the stubborn fact of the use and abuse of the Gospel before the middle and up to the very beginning of the second century, that is, to a time when it was simply impossible to mistake a pseudo-apostolic fiction for a genuine production of the patriarch of the apostolic age.

Internal Evidence. This is even still stronger, and leaves at last no alternative but truth or fraud.

To begin with the style of the fourth Gospel, we have already seen that it is altogether unique and without a parallel in post-apostolic literature, betraying a Hebrew of the Hebrews, impregnated with the genius of the Old Testament, in mode of thought and expression, in imagery and symbolism, in the symmetrical structure of sentences, in the simplicity and circumstantiality of narration; yet familiar with pure Greek, from long residence among Greeks. This is just what we should expect from John at Ephesus. Though not a rabbinical scholar, like Paul, he was acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures and not dependent on the Septuagint. He has in all fourteen quotations from the Old Testament.(210) Four of these agree with the Hebrew and the Septuagint; three agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint (6:45; 13:18 19:37), the rest are neutral, either agreeing with both or differing from both, or being free adaptations rather than citations; but none of them agrees with the Septuagint against the Hebrew.(211)

Among the post-apostolic writers there is no converted Jew, unless it be Hegesippus; none who could read the Hebrew and write Hebraistic Greek. After the destruction of Jerusalem the church finally separated from the synagogue and both assumed an attitude of uncompromising hostility.

The author was a Jew of Palestine. He gives, incidentally and without effort, unmistakable evidence of minute familiarity with the Holy Land and its inhabitants before the destruction of Jerusalem. He is at home in the localities of the holy city and the neighborhood. He describes Bethesda as "a pool by the sheep gate, having five porches" (5:2), Siloam as "a pool which is by interpretation Sent" (9:7), Solomon’s porch as being "in the Temple" (10:23), the brook Kedron "where was a garden" (18:1); he knows the location of the praetorium (18:28), the meaning of Gabbatha (19:13), and Golgotha (19:17), the distance of Bethany from Jerusalem "about fifteen furlongs off" (11:18), and he distinguishes it from Bethany beyond Jordan (1:28). He gives the date when the Herodian reconstruction of the temple began (2:19). He is equally familiar with other parts of Palestine and makes no mistakes such as are so often made by foreigners. He locates Cana in Galilee (2:1; 4:26 21:2), to distinguish it from another Cana; Aenon "near to Salim" where there are "many waters" (3:23); Sychar in Samaria near "Jacob’s, well," and in view of Mount Gerizim (4:5). He knows the extent of the Lake of Tiberias (6:19); he describes Bethsaida as "the city of Andrew and Peter" (1:44), as distinct from Bethsaida Julias on the eastern bank of the Jordan; he represents Nazareth as a place of proverbial insignificance (1:46).

He is well acquainted with the confused politico-ecclesiastical Messianic ideas and expectations of the Jews (1:19–28, 45–49; 4:25; 6:14, 15 7:26; 12:34, and other passages); with the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9, 20, 22 8:48); with Jewish usages and observances, as baptism (1:25; 3:22, 23 4:2), purification (2:6; 3:25, etc.), ceremonial pollution (18:28), feasts (2:13, 23; 5:1 7:37, etc.), circumcision, and the Sabbath (7:22, 23). He is also acquainted with the marriage and burial rites (2:1–10; 11:17–44), with the character of the Pharisees and their influence in the Sanhedrin, the relationship between Annas and Caiaphas. The objection of Bretschneider that he represents the office of the high-priest as an annual office arose from a misunderstanding of the phrase "that year" (11:49, 51 18:13), by which he means that memorable year in which Christ died for the sins of the people.

The author was an eye-witness of most of the events narrated. This appears from his life-like familiarity with the acting persons, the Baptist, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, Caiaphas, Annas, Nicodemus, Martha and Mary, Mary Magdalene, the woman of Samaria, the man born blind; and from the minute traits and vivid details which betray autopticity. He incidentally notices what the Synoptists omit, that the traitor was "the son of Simon" ( 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26 at Thomas was called "Didymus" (11:16; 20:24 21:2); while, on the other hand, he calls the Baptist simply "John" ( he himself being the other John), without adding to it the distinctive title as the Synoptists do more than a dozen times to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee.(212) He indicates the days and hours of certain events,(213) and the exact or approximate number of persons and objects mentioned.(214) He was privy to the thoughts of the disciples on certain occasions, their ignorance and misunderstanding of the words of the Master,(215) and even to the motives and feelings of the Lord.(216)

No literary artist could have invented the conversation of Christ with Nicodemus on the mystery of spiritual regeneration (John 3), or the conversation with the woman of Samaria (John 4), or the characteristic details of the catechization of the man born blind, which brings out so naturally the proud and heartless bigotry of the Jewish hierarchy and the rough, outspoken honesty and common sense of the blind man and his parents (9:13–34). The scene at Jacob’s well, described in John 4, presents a most graphic, and yet unartificial picture of nature and human life as it still remains, though in decay, at the foot of Gerizim and Ebal: there is the well of Jacob in a fertile, well-watered valley, there the Samaritan sanctuary on the top of Mount Gerizim, there the waving grain-fields ripening for the harvest; we are confronted with the historic antagonism of Jews and Samaritans which survives in the Nablus of to-day; there we see the genuine humanity of Jesus, as he sat down "wearied with his journey," though not weary of his work, his elevation above the rabbinical prejudice of conversing with a woman, his superhuman knowledge and dignity; there is the curiosity and quick-wittedness of the Samaritan Magdalene; and how natural is the transition from the water of Jacob’s well to the water of life, and from the hot dispute of the place of worship to the highest conception of God as an omnipresent spirit, and his true worship in spirit and in truth.(217)

The writer represents himself expressly as an eye-witness of the life of Christ. He differs from the Synoptists, who never use the first person nor mix their subjective feelings with the narrative. "We beheld his glory," he says, in the name of all the apostles and primitive disciples, in stating the general impression made upon them by the incarnate Logos dwelling.(218) And in the parallel passage of the first Epistle, which is an inseparable companion of the fourth Gospel, he asserts with solemn emphasis his personal knowledge of the incarnate Word of life whom he heard with his ears and saw with his eyes and handled with his hands (1 John 1:1–3). This assertion is general, and covers the whole public life of our Lord. But he makes it also in particular a case of special interest for the realness of Christ’s humanity; in recording the flow of blood and water from the wounded side, he adds emphatically: "He that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith things that are true, that ye also may believe" (John 19:35). Here we are driven to the alternative: either the writer was a true witness of what he relates, or he was a false witness who wrote down a deliberate lie.
Finally, the writer intimates that he is one of the Twelve, that he is one of the favorite three, that he is not Peter, nor James, that he is none other than the beloved John who leaned on the Master’s bosom. He never names himself, nor his brother James, nor his mother Salome, but he has a very modest, delicate, and altogether unique way of indirect self-designation. He stands behind his Gospel like a mysterious figure with a thin veil over his face without ever lifting the veil. He leaves the reader to infer the name by combination. He is undoubtedly that unnamed disciple who, with Andrew, was led to Jesus by the testimony of the Baptist on the banks of the Jordan (1:35–40), the disciple who at the last Supper "was reclining at the table in Jesus’ bosom" (13:23–25), that "other disciple" who, with Peter, followed Jesus into the court of the high-priest (18:15, 16), who stood by the cross and was intrusted by the dying Lord with the care of His mother (19:26, 27), and that "other disciple whom Jesus loved," who went with Peter to the empty sepulchre on the resurrection morning and was convinced of the great fact by the sight of the grave-cloths, and the head-cover rolled up in a place by itself (20:2–8). All these narratives are interwoven with autobiographic details. He calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved," not from vanity (as has been most strangely asserted by some critics), but in blessed and thankful remembrance of the infinite mercy of his divine Master who thus fulfilled the prophecy of his name Johanan, i.e., Jehovah is gracious. In that peculiar love of his all-beloved Lord was summed up for him the whole significance of his life.

With this mode of self-designation corresponds the designation of members of his family: his mother is probably meant by the unnamed "sister of the mother" of Jesus, who stood by the cross (John 19:25), for Salome was there, according to the Synoptists, and John would hardly omit this fact; and in the list of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared at the Lake of Galilee, "the sons of Zebedee" are put last (21:2), when yet in all the Synoptic lists of the apostles they are, with Peter and Andrew, placed at the head of the Twelve. This difference can only be explained from motives of delicacy and modesty.

What a contrast the author presents to those pseudonymous literary forgers of the second and third centuries, who unscrupulously put their writings into the mouth of the apostles or other honored names to lend them a fictitious charm and authority; and yet who cannot conceal the fraud which leaks out on every page.

Conclusion.

A review of this array of testimonies, external and internal, drives us to the irresistible conclusion that the fourth Gospel is the work of John, the apostle. This view is clear, self-consistent, and in full harmony with the character of the book and the whole history of the apostolic age; while the hypothesis of a literary fiction and pious fraud is contradictory, absurd, and self-condemned. No writer in the second century could have produced such a marvellous book, which towers high above all the books of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and Tertullian and Clement and Origen, or any other father or schoolman or reformer. No writer in the first century could have written it but an apostle, and no apostle but John, and John himself could not have written it without divine inspiration.

§ 84. Critical Review of the Johannean Problem.

See the Liter. in § 40, pp. 408 sqq., and the history of the controversy by Holtzmann, in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, VIII. 56 sqq.; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T.’s (6th ed.), I. 248 sqq.; Godet, Com. (3d ed.), I. 32 sqq.; Holtzmann, Einleitung (2d ed.), 423 sqq.; Weiss, Einleitung (1886), 609 sqq.

The importance of the subject justifies a special Section on the opposition to the fourth Gospel, after we have presented our own view on the subject with constant reference to the recent objections.

The Problem Stated.

The Johannean problem is the burning question of modern criticism on the soil of the New Testament. It arises from the difference between John and the Synoptists on the one hand, and the difference between the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse on the other.

I. The Synoptic aspect of the problem includes the differences between the first three Evangelists and the fourth concerning the theatre and length of Christ’s ministry, the picture of Christ, the nature and extent of his discourses, and a number of minor details. It admits the following possibilities:

(1.) Both the Synoptists and John are historical, and represent only different aspects of the same person and work of Christ, supplementing and confirming each other in every essential point. This is the faith of the Church and the conviction of nearly all conservative critics and commentators.

(2.) The fourth Gospel is the work of John, and, owing to his intimacy with Christ, it is more accurate and reliable than the Synoptists, who contain some legendary embellishments and even errors, derived from oral tradition, and must be rectified by John. This is the view of Schleiermacher, Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Weiss, and a considerable number of liberal critics and exegetes who yet accept the substance of the whole gospel history as true, and Christ as the Lord and Saviour of the race. The difference between these scholars and the church tradition is not fundamental, and admits of adjustment.

(3.) The Synoptists represent (in the main) the Christ of history, the fourth Gospel the ideal Christ of faith and fiction. So Baur and the Tübingen school (Schwegler, Zeller, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Holtzmann, , Hausrath, Schenkel, Mangold, Keim, Thoma), with their followers and sympathizers in France (Nicolas, d’Eichthal, Renan, Réville, Sabatier), Holland (Scholten and the Leyden school), and England (the anonymous author of "Supernatural Religion," Sam. Davidson, Edwin A. Abbott). But these critics eliminate the miraculous even from the Synoptic Christ, at least as far as possible, and approach the fourth hypothesis.

(4.) The Synoptic and Johannean Gospels are alike fictitious, and resolve themselves into myths and legends or pious frauds. This is the position of the extreme left wing of modern criticism represented chiefly by Strauss. It is the legitimate result of the denial of the supernatural and miraculous, which is as inseparable from the Synoptic as it is from the Johannean Christ; but it is also subversive of all history and cannot be seriously maintained in the face of overwhelming facts and results. Hence there has been a considerable reaction among the radical critics in favor of a more historical position. Keim’s, "History of Jesus of Nazara" is a very great advance upon Strauss’s "Leben Jesu," though equally critical and more learned, and meets the orthodox view half way on the ground of the Synoptic tradition, as represented in the Gospel of Matthew, which he dates back to a.d. 66.

The Apocalyptic aspect of the Johannean problem belongs properly to the consideration of the Apocalypse, but it has of late been inseparably interwoven with the Gospel question. It admits likewise of four distinct views:

(1.) The fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse are both from the pen of the apostle John, but separated by the nature of the subject, the condition of the writer, and an interval of at least twenty or thirty years, to account for the striking differences of temper and style. When he met Paul at Jerusalem, a.d. 50, he was one of the three "pillar-apostles" of Jewish Christianity (Gal. 2:9), but probably less than forty years of age, remarkably silent with his reserved force, and sufficiently in sympathy with Paul to give him the right hand of fellowship; when he wrote the Apocalypse, between a.d. 68 and 70, he was not yet sixty, and when he wrote the Gospel he was over eighty years of age. Moreover, the differences between the two books are more than counterbalanced by an underlying harmony. This has been acknowledged even by the head of the Tübingen critics, who calls the fourth Gospel an Apocalypse spiritualized or a transfiguration of the Apocalypse.(219)

(2.) John wrote the Gospel, but not the Apocalypse. Many critics of the moderate school are disposed to surrender the Apocalypse and to assign it to the somewhat doubtful and mysterious "Presbyter John," a contemporary of the Apostle John. So Schleiermacher, Lücke, Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Düsterdieck, etc. If we are to choose between the two books, the Gospel has no doubt stronger claims upon our acceptance.

(3.) John wrote the Apocalypse, but for this very reason he cannot have written the fourth Gospel. So Baur, Renan, Davidson, Abbott, and nearly all the radical critics (except Keim).

(4.) The fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse are both spurious and the work of the Gnostic Cerinthus (as the Alogi held), or of some anonymous forger. This view is so preposterous and unsound that no critic of any reputation for learning and judgment dares to defend it.

There is a correspondence between the four possible attitudes on both aspects of the Johannean question, and the parties advocating them.

The result of the conflict will be the substantial triumph of the faith of the church which accepts, on new grounds of evidence, all the four Gospels as genuine and historical, and the Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel as the works of John.

The Assaults on the Fourth Gospel.

Criticism has completely shifted its attitude on both parts of the problem. The change is very remarkable. When the first serious assault was made upon the genuineness of the fourth Gospel by the learned General Superintendent Bretschneider (in 1820), he was met with such overwhelming opposition, not only from evangelical divines like Olshausen and Tholuck, but also from Schleiermacher, Lücke, Credner, and Schott, that he honestly confessed his defeat a few years afterward (1824 and 1828).(220) And when Dr. Strauss, in his Leben Jesu (1835), renewed the denial, a host of old and new defenders arose with such powerful arguments that he himself (as he confessed in the third edition of 1838) was shaken in his doubt, especially by the weight and candor of Neander, although he felt compelled, in self-defence, to reaffirm his doubt as essential to the mythical hypothesis (in the fourth edition, 1840, and afterward in his popular Leben Jesu, 1864).

But in the meantime his teacher, Dr. Baur, the coryphaeus of the Tübingen school, was preparing his heavy ammunition, and led the second, the boldest, the most vigorous and effective assault upon the Johannean fort (since 1844).(221) He was followed in the main question, though with considerable modifications in detail, by a number of able and acute critics in Germany and other countries. He represented the fourth Gospel as a purely ideal work which grew out of the Gnostic, Montanistic, and paschal controversies after the middle of the second century, and adjusted the various elements of the Catholic faith with consummate skill and art. It was not intended to be a history, but a system of theology in the garb of history. This "tendency" hypothesis was virtually a death-blow to the mythical theory of Strauss, which excludes conscious design.

The third great assault inspired by Baur, yet with independent learning and judgment, was made by Dr. Keim (in his Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1867). He went beyond Baur in one point: he denied the whole tradition of John’s sojourn in Ephesus as a mistake of Irenaeus; he thus removed even the foundation for the defence of the Apocalypse as a Johannean production, and neutralized the force of the Tübingen assault derived from that book. On the other hand, he approached the traditional view by tracing the composition back from 170 (Baur) to the reign of Trajan, i.e., to within a few years after the death of the apostle. In his denial of the Ephesus tradition he met with little favor,(222) but strong opposition from the Tübingen critics, who see the fatal bearing of this denial upon the genuineness of the Apocalypse.(223) The effect of Keim’s movement therefore tended rather to divide and demoralize the besieging force.

Nevertheless the effect of these persistent attacks was so great that three eminent scholars, Hase of Jena (1876), Reuss of Strassburg, and Sabatier of Paris (1879), deserted from the camp of the defenders to the army of the besiegers. Renan, too, who had in the thirteenth edition of his Vie de Jesus (1867) defended the fourth Gospel at least in part, has now (since 1879, in his L’Église chrétienne) given it up entirely.(224)

The Defence of the Fourth Gospel.

The incisive criticism of Baur and his school compelled a thorough reinvestigation of the whole problem, and in this way has been of very great service to the cause of truth. We owe to it the ablest defences of the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel and the precious history which it represents. Prominent among these defenders against the latest attacks were Bleek, Lange, Ebrard, Thiersch, Schneider, Tischendorf, Riggenbach, Ewald, Steitz, Aberle, Meyer, Luthardt, Wieseler, Beyschlag, Weiss, among the Germans; Godet, Pressensé, Astié, among the French; Niermeyer, Van Oosterzee, Hofstede de Groot, among the Dutch; Alford, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott, Sanday, Plummer, among the English; Fisher, and Abbot among the Americans.(225)

It is significant that the school of negative criticism has produced no learned commentary on John. All the recent commentators on the fourth Gospel (Lücke, Ewald, Lange, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Meyer, Weiss, Alford, Wordsworth, Godet, Westcott, Milligan , Moulton, Plummer, etc.) favor its genuineness.

The Difficulties of the Anti-Johannean Theory.

The prevailing theory of the negative critics is this: They accept the Synoptic Gospels, with the exception of the miracles, as genuine history, but for this very reason they reject John; and they accept the Apocalypse as the genuine work of the apostle John, who is represented by the Synoptists as a Son of Thunder, and by Paul (Gal. 2) as one of the three pillars of conservative Jewish Christianity, but for this very reason they deny that he can have written the Gospel, which in style and spirit differs so widely from the Apocalypse. For this position they appeal to the fact that the Synoptists and the Apocalypse are equally well, and even better supported by internal and external evidence, and represent a tradition which is at least twenty years older.

But what then becomes of the fourth Gospel? It is incredible that the real John should have falsified the history of his Master; consequently the Gospel which bears his name is a post-apostolic fiction, a religious poem, or a romance on the theme of the incarnate Logos. It is the Gospel of Christian Gnosticism, strongly influenced by the Alexandrian philosophy of Philo. Yet it is no fraud any more than other literary fictions. The unknown author dealt with the historical Jesus of the Synoptists, as Plato dealt with Socrates, making him simply the base for his own sublime speculations, and putting speeches into his mouth which he never uttered.

Who was that Christian Plato? No critic can tell, or even conjecture, except Renan, who revived, as possible at least, the absurd view of the Alogi, that the Gnostic heretic, Cerinthus the enemy of John, wrote the fourth Gospel(226) Such a conjecture requires an extraordinary stretch of imagination and an amazing amount of credulity. The more sober among the critics suppose that the author was a highly gifted Ephesian disciple of John, who freely reproduced and modified his oral teaching after he was removed by death. But how could his name be utterly unknown, when the names of Polycarp and Papias and other disciples of John, far less important, have come down to as? "The great unknown" is a mystery indeed. Some critics, half in sympathy with Tübingen, are willing to admit that John himself wrote a part of the book, either the historic narratives or the discourses, but neither of these compromises will do: the book is a unit, and is either wholly genuine or wholly a fiction.

Nor are the negative critics agreed as to the time of composition. Under the increasing pressure of argument and evidence they have been forced to retreat, step by step, from the last quarter of the second century to the first, even within a few years of John’s death, and within the lifetime of hundreds of his hearers, when it was impossible for a pseudo-Johannean book to pass into general currency without the discovery of the fraud. Dr. Baur and Schwegler assigned the composition to a.d. 170 or 160; Volkmar to 155; Zeller to 150; Scholten to 140; Hilgenfeld to about 130; Renan to about 125; Schenkel to 120 or 115; until Keim (in 1867) went up as high as 110 or even 100, but having reached such an early date, he felt compelled (1875)(227) in self-defence to advance again to 130, and this notwithstanding the conceded testimonies of Justin Martyr and the early Gnostics. These vacillations of criticism reveal the impossibility of locating the Gospel in the second century.

If we surrender the fourth Gospel, what shall we gain in its place? Fiction for fact, stone for bread, a Gnostic dream for the most glorious truth.

Fortunately, the whole anti-Johannean hypothesis breaks down at every point. It suffers shipwreck on innumerable details which do not fit at all into the supposed dogmatic scheme, but rest on hard facts of historical recollections.(228)

And instead of removing any difficulties it creates greater difficulties in their place. There are certain contradictions which no ingenuity can solve. If "the great unknown" was the creative artist of his ideal Christ, and the inventor of those sublime discourses, the like of which were never heard before or since, he must have been a mightier genius than Dante or Shakespeare, yea greater than his own hero, that is greater than the greatest: this is a psychological impossibility and a logical absurdity. Moreover, if he was not John and yet wanted to be known as John, he was a deceiver and a liar:(229) this is a moral impossibility. The case of Plato is very different, and his relation to Socrates is generally understood. The Synoptic Gospels are anonymous, but do not deceive the reader. Luke and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews honestly make themselves known as mere disciples of the apostles. The real parallel would be the apocryphal Gospels and the pseudo-Clementine productions, where the fraud is unmistakable, but the contents are so far below the fourth Gospel that a comparison is out of the question. Literary fictions were not uncommon in the ancient church, but men had common sense and moral sense then as well is now to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lie. It is simply incredible that the ancient church should have been duped into a unanimous acceptance of such an important book as the work of the beloved disciple almost from the very date of his death, and that the whole Christian church, Greek, Latin, Protestant, including an innumerable army of scholars, should have been under a radical delusion for eighteen hundred years, mistaking a Gnostic dream for the genuine history of the Saviour of mankind, and drinking the water of life from the muddy source of fraud.(230)

In the meantime the fourth Gospel continues and will continue to shine, like the sun in heaven, its own best evidence, and will shine all the brighter when the clouds, great and small, shall have passed away.

§ 85. The Acts of the Apostles.

Comp. § 82.

1. Critical Treatises.

M. Schneckenburger: Zweck der Apostelgeschichte. Bern, 1841.

Schwanbeck: Quellen der Ap. Gesch. Darmstadt, 1847.

Ed. Zeller: Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles. Stuttg., 1854; trsl. by Jos. Dare, 1875–76, London, 2 vols.

Lekebusch: Composition u. Entstehung der Ap. Gesch. Gotha, 1854.

Klostermann: Vindiciae Lucancae. Göttingen, 1866.

Arthur König (R. C.): Die Aechtheit der Ap. Gesch. Breslau, 1867.

J. R. Oertel: Paulus in der Ap. Gesch. Der histor. Char. dieser Schrift, etc. Halle, 1868.

J. B. Lightfoot: Illustrations of the Acts from recent Discoveries, in the "Contemporary Review" for May, 1878, pp. 288–296.

Dean Howson: Bohlen Lectures on the Evidential Value of the Acts of the Apostles, delivered in Philadelphia, 1880. London and New York, 1880.

Friedr. Zimmer: Galaterbrief und Apostelgeschichte. Hildburghausen, 1882.

Comp. also, in part, J. H. Scholten: Das Paulinische Evangelium, trsl. from the Dutch by Redepenning, Elberf., 1881. A critical essay on the writings of Luke (pp. 254 sqq.).

2. Commentaries on Acts.

By Chrysotom; Jerome; Calvin; Olshausen; De Wette (4th ed., revised by Overbeck, 1870); Meyer (4th ed., 1870; 5th ed., revised by Wendt 1880); Baumgarten (in 2 parts, 1852, Engl. transl. in 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1856); Jos. A. Alexander; H. B. Hackett (2d ed., 1858; 3d ed., 1877); Ewald (1872); Lecher-Gerok (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, transl. by Schaeffer, N. Y., 1866); F. C. Cook (Lond., 1866); Alford; Wordsworth; Gloag; Plumptre; (in Ellicott’s Com.); Jacobson (in the "Speaker’s Com.," 1880); Lumby (in the "Cambridge Bible for Schools," 1880); Howson and Spence (in Schaff’s "Popul. Com.," 1880; revised for "Revision Com.," N. Y., 1882); K. Schmidt (Die Apostelgesch. unter dem Hauptgesichtspunkt ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit kritisch exegetisch bearbeitet. Erlangen, 1882, 2 vols.); Nösgen (Leipz. 1882), Bethge (1887).

The Acts and the Third Gospel.

The book of Acts, though placed by the ancient ecclesiastical division not in the "Gospel," but in the "Apostle," is a direct continuation of the third Gospel, by the same author, and addressed to the same Theophilus, probably a Christian convert of distinguished social position. In the former he reports what he heard and read, in the latter what he heard and saw. The one records the life and work of Christ, the other the work of the Holy Spirit, who is recognized at every step. The word Spirit, or Holy Spirit, occurs more frequently in the Acts than in any other book of the New Testament. It might properly be called "the Gospel of the Holy Spirit."

The universal testimony of the ancient church traces the two books to the same author. This is confirmed by internal evidence of identity of style, continuity of narrative, and correspondence of plan. About fifty words not found elsewhere in the New Testament are common to both books.(231)

Object and Contents

The Acts is a cheerful and encouraging book, like the third Gospel; it is full of missionary zeal and hope; it records progress after progress, conquest after conquest, and turns even persecution and martyrdom into an occasion of joy and thanksgiving. It is the first church history. It begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. An additional chapter would probably have recorded the terrible persecution of Nero and the heroic martyrdom of Paul and Peter. But this would have made the book a tragedy; instead of that it ends as cheerfully and triumphantly as it begins.

It represents the origin and progress of Christianity from the capital of Judaism to the capital of heathenism. It is a history of the planting of the church among the Jews by Peter, and among the Gentiles by Paul. Its theme is expressed in the promise of the risen Christ to his disciples (Acts 1:8): "Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you (Acts 2): and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem (Acts 3–7), and in all Judaea and Samaria (Acts 8–12), and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 13–28). The Gospel of Luke, which is the Pauline Gospel, laid the foundation by showing how salvation, coming from the Jews and opposed by the Jews, was intended for all men, Samaritans and Gentiles. The Acts exhibits the progress of the church from and among the Jews to the Gentiles by the ministry of Peter, then of Stephen, then of Philip in Samaria, then of Peter again in the conversion of Cornelius, and at last by the labors of Paul and his companions.(232)

The Acts begins with the ascension of Christ, or his accession to his throne, and the founding of his kingdom by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; it closes with the joyful preaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles in the capital of the then known world.

The objective representation of the progress of the church is the chief aim of the work, and the subjective and biographical features are altogether subordinate. Before Peter, the hero of the first or Jewish-Christian division, and Paul, the hero of the second or Gentile-Christian part, the other apostles retire and are only once named, except John, the elder James, Stephen, and James, the brother of the Lord. Even the lives of the pillar-apostles appear in the history only so far as they are connected with the missionary work. In this view the long-received title of the book, added by some other hand than the author’s, is not altogether correct, though in keeping with ancient usage (as in the apocryphal literature, which includes "Acts of Pilate," "Acts of Peter and Paul," "Acts of Philip," etc.). More than three-fifths of it are devoted to Paul, and especially to his later labors and journeys, in which the author could speak from personal knowledge. The book is simply a selection of biographical memoirs of Peter and Paul connected with the planting of Christianity or the beginnings of the church (Origines Ecclesiae).

Sources.

Luke, the faithful pupil and companion of Paul, was eminently fitted to produce the history of the primitive church. For the first part he had the aid not only of oral tradition, but she of Palestinian documents, as he had in preparing his Gospel. Hence the Hebrew coloring in the earlier chapters of Acts; while afterward he writes as pure Greek, as in the classical prologue of his Gospel. Most of the events in the second part came under his personal observation. Hence he often speaks in the plural number, modestly including himself.(233) The "we" sections begin Acts 16:10, when Paul started from Troas to Macedonia (a.d. 51); they break off when he leaves Philippi for Corinth (17:1); they are resumed (20:5, 6) when he visits Macedonia again seven years later (58), and then continue to the close of the narrative (a.d. 63). Luke probably remained several years at Philippi, engaged in missionary labors, until Paul’s return. He was in the company of Paul, including the interruptions, at least twelve years. He was again with Paul in his last captivity, shortly before his martyrdom, his most faithful and devoted companion (2 Tim. 4:11).

Time of Composition.

Luke probably began the book of Acts or a preliminary diary during his missionary journeys with Paul in Greece, especially in Philippi, where he seems to have tarried several years; he continued it in Caesarea, where he had the best opportunity to gather reliable information of the earlier history, from Jerusalem, and such living witnesses as Cornelius and his friends, from Philip and his daughters, who resided in Caesarea; and he finished it soon after Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, before the terrible persecution in the summer of 64, which he could hardly have left unnoticed.

We look in vain for any allusion to this persecution and the martyrdom of Paul or Peter, or to any of their Epistles, or to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the later organization of the church, or the superiority of the bishop over the presbyter (Comp. Acts 20:17, 28), or the Gnostic heresies, except by way of prophetic warning (20:30). This silence in a historical work like this seems inexplicable on the assumption that the book was written after a.d. 70, or even after 64. But if we place the composition before, the martyrdom of Paul, then the last verse is after all an appropriate conclusion of a missionary history of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome. For the bold and free testimony of the Apostle of the Gentiles in the very heart of the civilized world was the sign and pledge of victory.

The Acts and the Gospels.

The Acts is the connecting link between the Gospels and Epistles. It presupposes and confirms the leading events in the life of Christ, on which the church is built. The fact of the resurrection, whereof the apostles were witnesses, sends a thrill of joy and an air of victory through the whole book. God raised Jesus from the dead and mightily proclaimed him to be the Messiah, the prince of life and a Saviour in Israel; this is the burden of the sermons of Peter, who shortly before had denied his Master. He boldly bears witness to it before the people, in his pentecostal sermon, before the Sanhedrin, and before Cornelius. Paul likewise, in his addresses at Antioch in Pisidia, at Thessalonica, on the Areopagus before the Athenian philosophers, and at Caesarea before Festus and Agrippa, emphasizes the resurrection without which his own conversion never could have taken place.

The Acts and the Epistles.

The Acts gives us the external history of the apostolic church; the Epistles present the internal life of the same. Both mutually supplement and confirm each other by a series of coincidences in all essential points. These coincidences are all the more conclusive as they are undesigned and accompanied by slight discrepancies in minor details. Archdeacon Paley made them the subject of a discussion in his Horae Paulinae,(234) which will retain its place among classical monographs alongside of James Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Arguments such as are furnished in these two books are sufficient to silence most of the critical objections against the credibility of Acts for readers of sound common sense and unbiased judgment. There is not the slightest trace that Luke had read any of the thirteen Epistles of Paul, nor that Paul had read a line of Acts. The writings were contemporaneous and independent, yet animated by the same spirit. Luke omits, it is true, Paul’s journey to Arabia, his collision with Peter at Antioch, and many of his trials and persecutions; but he did not aim at a full biography. The following are a few examples of these conspicuously undesigned coincidences in the chronological order:

Paul’s Conversion.

Comp. Acts chs. 9; 22and 26; three accounts which differ only in minor details.

Gal. 1:15–17; 1 Cor. 15:8; 1 Tim. 1:13–16.

Paul’s Persecution and Escape at Damascus.

Acts 9:23–25. The Jews took counsel together to kill him ... but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall lowering him in a basket.

2 Cor. 11:32, 33. In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes, in order to take me; and through a window I was let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands

Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem.

9:26, 27. And when he was come to Jerusalem ... Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles.

Gal. 1:18. Then after three years [counting from his conversion] I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days.

15:2. They appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders [to the apostolic conference to settle the question about circumcision].

Gal. 2:1. Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by revelation. [This inner motive does, of course, not exclude the church appointment mentioned by Luke.]

Paul Left at Athens Alone.

17:16. Now while Paul waited for them [Silas and Timothy] at Athens.

1 Thess. 3:1 We thought it good to be left behind at Athens alone, and sent Timothy, etc. Comp 3:7.

Paul Working at his Trade.

18:3. And because he [Aquila] was of the same trade, he abode with them, and they wrought; for by their trade they were tent makers. Comp. 20:34.

1 Thess. 2:9. Ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail: working night and day, that we might not burden any of you. Comp. 1 Cor. 4:11, 12.

Paul’s Two Visits to Corinth.

18:1; 20:2.

1 Cor. 2:1; 4:19; 16:5.

Work of Apollos at Corinth.

18:27, 28.

1 Cor. 1:12; 3:6.

Paul Becoming a Jew to the Jews.

16:3; 18:18 21:23–26.

1 Cor. 9:20.

Baptism of Crispus and Gaius.

18:8.

1 Cor. 1:14–17.

Collection for the Poor Brethren.

28:23.

1 Cor. 16:1.

Paul’s Last Journey to Jerusalem.

20 ;6; 24:17

Rom. 15:25, 26

His Desire to Visit Rome.

19:21.

Rom. 1:13;15:23.

Paul an Ambassador in Bonds.

28:16–20.

Eph. 6:19, 20

The Acts and Secular History.

The Acts brings Christianity in contact with the surrounding world and makes many allusions to various places, secular persons and events, though only incidentally and as far as its object required it. These allusions are—with a single exception, that of Theudas—in full harmony with the history of the age as known from Josephus and heathen writers, and establish Luke’s claim to be considered a well-informed, honest, and credible historian. Bishop Lightfoot asserts that no ancient work affords so many tests of veracity, because no other has such numerous points of contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and typography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. The description of persons introduced in the Acts such as Gamaliel, Herod, Agrippa I., Bernice, Felix, Festus, Gallio, agrees as far as it goes entirely with what we know from contemporary sources. The allusions to countries, cities, islands, in Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy are without exception correct and reveal an experienced traveller. We mention the chief points, some of which are crucial tests.

The rebellion of Theudas, Acts 5:36, alluded to in the speech of Gamaliel, which was delivered about a.d. 33. Here is, apparently, a conflict with Josephus, who places this event in the reign of Claudius, and under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, a.d. 44, ten or twelve years after Gamaliel’s speech.(235) But he mentions no less than three insurrections which took place shortly after the death of Herod the Great, one under the lead of Judas (who may have been Theudas or Thaddaeus, the two names being interchangeable, comp. Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:16), and he adds that besides these there were many highway robbers and murderers who pretended to the name of king.(236) At all events, we should hesitate to charge Luke with an anachronism. He was as well informed as Josephus, and more credible. This is the only case of a conflict between the two, except the case of the census in Luke 2:2, and here the discovery of a double governorship of Quirinius has brought the chronological difficulty within the reach of solution.(237)
The rebellion of Judas of Galilee, mentioned in the same speech, Acts 5:37, as having occurred in the days of the enrolment (the census of Quirinius), is confirmed by Josephus.(238) The insurrection of this Judas was the most vigorous attempt to throw off the Roman yoke before the great war.
Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians, 8:27. Strabo mentions a queen of Meroè in Ethiopia, under that name, which was probably, like Pharaoh, a dynastic title.(239)
The famine under Claudius, 11:28. This reign (a.d. 41–54) was disturbed by frequent famines, one of which, according to Josephus, severely affected Judaea and Syria, and caused great distress in Jerusalem under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, a.d. 45.(240)
The death of King Herod Agrippa I. (grandson of Herod the Great), 12:20–23. Josephus says nothing about the preceding persecution of the church, but reports in substantial agreement with Luke that the king died of a loathsome disease in the seventh year of his reign (a.d. 44), five days after he had received, at the theatre of Caesarea, divine honors, being hailed, in heathen fashion, as a god by his courtiers.(241)
The proconsular (as distinct from the propraetorian) status of Cyprus, under Sergius Paulus, 13:7 (suvn tw' ajnqupavtw/ Sergivw/ Pauvlw/). Here Luke was for a long time considered inaccurate, even by Grotius, but has been strikingly confirmed by modern research. When Augustus assumed the supreme power (b.c. 27), he divided the government of the provinces with the Senate, and called the ruler of the imperatorial provinces, which needed direct military control under the emperor as commander of the legions, propraetor (ajntistravthgo") or legate (presbuvth"), the ruler of a senatorial province, proconsul (ajnquvpato"). Formerly these terms had signified that the holder of the office had previously been praetor (strathgo;" or hJgemwvn) or consul (u{pato"); now they signified the administrative heads of the provinces. But this subdivision underwent frequent changes, so that only a well-informed person could tell the distinction at any time. Cyprus was in the original distribution (b.c. 27) assigned to the emperor,(242) but since b.c. 22, and at the time of Paul’s visit under Claudius, it was a senatorial province;(243) and hence Sergius Paulus is rightly called proconsul. Coins have been found from the reign of Claudius which confirm this statement.(244) Yea, the very name of (Sergius) Paulus has been discovered by General di Cesnola at Soli (which, next to Salamis, was the most important city of the island), in a mutilated inscription, which reads: "in the proconsulship of Paulus."(245) Under Hadrian the island was governed by a propraetor; under Severus, again by a proconsul.
The proconsular status of Achaia under Gallio, 18:12 (Gallivwno" ajnqupavtou o[nto" th'" Acaiva"). Achaia, which included the whole of Greece lying south of Macedonia, was originally a senatorial province, then an imperatorial province under Tiberius, and again a senatorial province under Claudius.(246) In the year 53–54, when Paul was at Corinth, M. Annaeus Novatus Gallio, the brother of the philosopher L. Annaeus Seneca, was proconsul of Achaia, and popularly esteemed for his mild temper as "dulcis Gallio."
Paul and Barnabas mistaken for Zeus and Hermes in Lycaonia, 14:11. According to the myth described by Ovid,(247) the gods Jupiter and Mercury (Zeus and Hermes) had appeared to the Lycaonians in the likeness of men, and been received by Baucis and Philemon, to whom they left tokens of that favor. The place where they had dwelt was visited by devout pilgrims and adorned with votive offerings. How natural, therefore, was it for these idolaters, astonished by the miracle, to mistake the eloquent Paul for Hermes, and Barnabas who may have been of a more imposing figure, for Zeus.
The colonial dignity of the city of Philippi, in Macedonia, 16:12 ("a Roman colony," kolwvnia; comp. 16:21, "being Romans"). Augustus had sent a colony to the famous battlefield where Brutus and the Republic expired, and conferred on the place new importance and the privileges of Italian or Roman citizenship (jus Italicum).(248)
"Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira," 16:14. Thyatira (now Akhissar), in the valley of Lycus in Asia Minor, was famous for its dying works, especially for purple or crimson.(249)
The "politarchs" of Thessalonica, 17:6, 8.(250) This was a very rare title for magistrates, and might easily be confounded with the more usual designation "poliarchs." But Luke’s accuracy has been confirmed by an inscription still legible on an archway in Thessalonica, giving the names of seven "politarchs" who governed before the visit of Paul.(251)
The description of Athens, the Areopagus, the schools of philosophy, the idle curiosity and inquisitiveness of the Athenians (mentioned also by Demosthenes), the altar of an unknown God, and the quotation from Aratus or Cleanthes, in Acts 17, are fully borne out by classical authorities.(252)
The account of Ephesus in the nineteenth chapter has been verified as minutely accurate by the remarkable discoveries of John T. Wood, made between 1863 and 1874, with the aid of the English Government. The excessive worship of Diana, "the great goddess of Artemis," the temple-warden, the theatre (capable of holding twenty-five thousand people) often used for public assemblies, the distinct officers of the city, the Roman proconsul (ajnquvpato"), the recorder or "town-clerk" (grammateuv"), and the Asiarchs (jAsiarcaiv) or presidents of the games and the religious ceremonials, have all reappeared in ruins and on inscriptions, which may now be studied in the British Museum. "With these facts in view," says Lightfoot, "we are justified in saying that ancient literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial times—the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and perseverance of Mr. Wood—comparable for its life-like truthfulness to the narrative of St. Paul’s sojourn there in the Acts."(253)
The voyage and shipwreck of Paul in Acts 27. This chapter contains more information about ancient navigation than any work of Greek or Roman literature, and betrays the minute accuracy of an intelligent eye-witness, who, though not a professional seaman, was very familiar with nautical terms from close observation. He uses no less than sixteen technical terms, some of them rare, to describe the motion and management of a ship, and all of them most appropriately; and he is strictly correct in the description of the localities at Crete, Salmone, Fair Havens, Cauda, Lasea and Phoenix (two small places recently identified), and Melita (Malta), as well as the motions and effects of the tempestuous northeast wind called Euraquilo (A. V. Euroclydon) in the Mediterranean. All this has been thoroughly tested by an expert seaman and scholar, James Smith, of Scotland, who has published the results of his examination in the classical monograph already mentioned.(254) Monumental and scientific evidence outweighs critical conjectures, and is an irresistible vindication of the historical accuracy and credibility of Luke.

The Acts an Irenicum.

But some critics have charged the Acts with an intentional falsification of history in the interest of peace between the Petrine and Pauline sections of the church. The work is said to be a Catholic Irenicum, based probably on a narrative of Luke, but not completed before the close of the first century, for the purpose of harmonizing the Jewish and Gentile sections of the church by conforming the two leading apostles, i.e., by raising Peter to the Pauline and lowering Paul to the Petrine Plane, and thus making both subservient to a compromise between Judaizing bigotry and Gentile freedom.(255)

The chief arguments on which this hypothesis is based are the suppression of the collision between Paul and Peter at Antioch, and the friendly relation into which Paul is brought to James, especially at the last interview. Acts 15 is supposed to be in irreconcilable conflict with Galatian. But a reaction has taken place in the Tübingen school, and it is admitted now by some of the ablest critics that the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism has been greatly exaggerated by Baur, and that Acts is a far more trustworthy account than he was willing to admit. The Epistle to the Galatians itself is the best vindication of the Acts, for it expressly speaks of a cordial agreement between Paul and the Jewish pillar-apostles. As to the omission of the collision between Peter and Paul at Antioch, it was merely a passing incident, perhaps unknown to Luke, or omitted because it had no bearing on the course of events recorded by him. On the other hand, he mentions the "sharp contention" between Paul and Barnabas, because it resulted in a division of the missionary work, Paul and Silas going to Syria and Cilicia, Barnabas and Mark sailing away to Cyprus (15:39–41). Of this Paul says nothing, because it had no bearing on his argument with the Galatians. Paul’s conciliatory course toward James and the Jews, as represented in the Acts, is confirmed by his own Epistles, in which he says that he became a Jew to the Jews, as well as a Gentile to the Gentiles, in order to gain them both, and expresses his readiness to make the greatest possible sacrifice for the salvation of his brethren after the flesh (1 Cor. 9:20; Rom. 9:3).

The Truthfulness of the Acts.

The book of Acts is, indeed, like every impartial history, an Irenicum, but a truthful Irenicum, conceived in the very spirit of the Conference at Jerusalem and the concordat concluded by the leading apostles, according to Paul’s own testimony in the polemical Epistle to the Galatians. The principle of selection required, of course, the omission of a large number of facts and incidents. But the selection was made with fairness and justice to all sides. The impartiality and truthfulness of Luke is very manifest in his honest record of the imperfections of the apostolic church. He does not conceal the hypocrisy and mean selfishness of Ananias and Sapphira, which threatened to poison Christianity in its cradle (Acts 5:1 sqq.); he informs us that the institution of the diaconate arose from a complaint of the Grecian Jews against their Hebrew brethren for neglecting their widows in the daily ministration (61 sqq.) he represents Paul and Barnabas as "men of like passions" with other men (14:15), and gives us some specimens of weak human nature in Mark when he became discouraged by the hardship of missionary life and returned to his mother in Jerusalem (13:13), and in Paul and Barnabas when they fell out for a season on account of this very Mark, who was a cousin of Barnabas (15:39); nor does he pass in silence the outburst of Paul’s violent temper when in righteous indignation he called the high-priest a "whited wall" (23:3); and he speaks of serious controversies and compromises even among the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—all for our humiliation and warning as well as comfort and encouragement.

Examine and compare the secular historians from Herodotus to Macaulay, and the church historians from Eusebius to Neander, and Luke need not fear a comparison. No history of thirty years has ever been written so truthful and impartial, so important and interesting, so healthy in tone and hopeful in spirit, so aggressive and yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring, so replete with lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work in spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet withal so simple and modest, as the Acts of the Apostles. It is the best as well as the first manual of church history.

§ 86. The Epistles.

The sermons of Stephen and the apostles in Acts (excepting the farewell of Paul to the Ephesian Elders) are missionary addresses to outsiders, with a view to convert them to the Christian faith. The Epistles are addressed to baptized converts, and aim to strengthen them in their faith, and, by brotherly instruction, exhortation, rebuke, and consolation, to build up the church in all Christian graces on the historical foundation of the teaching and example of Christ. The prophets of the Old Testament delivered divine oracles to the people; the apostles of the New Testament wrote letters to the brethren, who shared with them the same faith and hope as members of Christ.

The readers are supposed to be already "in Christ," saved and sanctified "in Christ," and holding all their social and domestic relations and discharging their duties "in Christ." They are "grown together"(256) with Christ, sharing in his death, burial, and resurrection, and destined to reign and rule with him in glory forever. On the basis of this new relation, constituted by a creative act of divine grace, and sealed by baptism, they are warned against every sin and exhorted to every virtue. Every departure from their profession and calling implies double guilt and double danger of final ruin.

Occasions and calls for correspondence were abundant, and increased with the spread of Christianity over the Roman empire. The apostles could not be omnipresent and had to send messengers and letters to distant churches. They probably wrote many more letters than we possess, although we have good reason to suppose that the most important and permanently valuable are preserved. A former letter of Paul to the Corinthians is implied in 1 Cor. 5:9: "I wrote to you in my epistle;"(257) and traces of further correspondence are found in 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 10:9; Eph. 3:3. The letter "from Laodicea," referred to in Col. 4:16, is probably the encyclical Epistle to the Ephesians.

The Epistles of the New Testament are without a parallel in ancient literature, and yield in importance only to the Gospels, which stand higher, as Christ himself rises above the apostles. They are pastoral letters to congregations or individuals, beginning with an inscription and salutation, consisting of doctrinal expositions and practical exhortations and consolations, and concluding with personal intelligence, greetings, and benediction. They presuppose throughout the Gospel history, and often allude to the death and resurrection of Christ as the foundation of the church and the Christian hope. They were composed amidst incessant missionary labors and cares, under trial and persecution, some of them from prison, and yet they abound in joy and thanksgiving. They were mostly called forth by special emergencies, yet they suit all occasions. Tracts for the times, they are tracts for all times. Children of the fleeting moment, they contain truths of infinite moment. They compress more ideas in fewer words than any other writings, human or divine, excepting the Gospels. They discuss the highest themes which can challenge an immortal mind—God, Christ, and the Spirit, sin and redemption, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, repentance, faith and good works, holy living and dying, the conversion of the world, the general judgment, eternal glory and bliss. And all this before humble little societies of poor, uncultured artisans, freedmen and slaves! And yet they are of more real and general value to the church than all the systems of theology from Origen to Schleiermacher—yea, than all the confessions of faith. For eighteen hundred years they have nourished the faith of Christendom, and will continue to do so to the end of time. This is the best evidence of their divine inspiration.

The Epistles are divided into two groups, Catholic and Pauline. The first is more general; the second bears the strong imprint of the intense personality of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

§ 87. The Catholic Epistles.

I. Storr: De Catholicarum Epp. Occasione et Consilio. Tüb. 1789. Staeudlin: De Fontibus Epp. Cath. Gott. 1790. J. D. Schulze: Der schriftstellerische Charakter und Werth des Petrus, Jacobus und Judas. Leipz. 1802. Der schriftsteller. Ch. des Johannes. 1803.

Commentaries on all the Catholic Epistles by Goeppfert (1780), Schlegel (1783), Carpzov (1790), Augusti (1801), Grashof (1830), Jachmann (1838), Sumner (1840), De Wette (3d ed. by Brückner 1865), Meyer (the Cath. Epp. by Huther, Düsterdieck, Beyerschlag), Lange (Eng. transl. with additions by Mombert, 1872), John T. Demarest (N. York, 1879); also the relevant parts in the "Speaker’s Com.," in Ellicott’s Com., the Cambridge Bible for Schools (ed. by Dean Perowne), and in the International Revision Com. (ed. by Schaff), etc. P. I. Gloag: Introduction, to the Catholic Epp., Edinb., 1887.

The seven Epistles of James, 1st and 2d Peter, 1st, 2d, and 3d John, and Jude usually follow in the old manuscripts the Acts of the Apostles, and precede the Pauline Epistles, perhaps as being the works of the older apostles, and representing, in part at least, the Jewish type of Christianity. They are of a more general character, and addressed not to individuals or single congregations, as those of Paul, but to a larger number of Christians scattered through a district or over the world. Hence they are called, from the time of Origen and Eusebius, Catholic. This does not mean in this connection anti-heretical (still less, of course, Greek Catholic or Roman Catholic), but encyclical or circular. The designation, however, is not strictly correct, and applies only to five of them. The second and third Epistles of John are addressed to individuals. On the other hand the Epistle to the Hebrews is encyclical, and ought to be numbered with the Catholic Epistles, but is usually appended to those of Paul. The Epistle to the Ephesians is likewise intended for more than one congregation. The first Christian document of an encyclical character is the pastoral letter of the apostolic Conference at Jerusalem (a.d. 50) to the Gentile brethren in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23–29).(258)

The Catholic Epistles are distinct from the Pauline by their more general contents and the absence of personal and local references. They represent different, though essentially harmonious, types of doctrine and Christian life. The individuality of James, Peter, and John stand out very prominently in these brief remains of their correspondence. They do not enter into theological discussions like those of Paul, the learned Rabbi, and give simpler statements of truth, but protest against the rising ascetic and Antinomian errors, as Paul does in the Colossians and Pastoral Epistles. Each has a distinct character and purpose, and none could well be spared from the New Testament without marring the beauty and completeness of the whole.

The time of composition cannot be fixed with certainty, but is probably as follows: James before a.d. 50; 1st Peter (probably also 2d Peter and Jude) before a.d. 67; John between a.d. 80 and 100.

Only two of these Epistles, the 1st of Peter and the 1st of John, belong to the Eusebian Homologumena, which were universally accepted by the ancient church as inspired and canonical. About the other five there was more or less doubt as to their origin down to the close of the fourth century, when all controversy on the extent of the canon went to sleep till the time of the Reformation. Yet they bear the general imprint of the apostolic age, and the absence of stronger traditional evidence is due in part to their small size and limited use.

James.

Comp. on the lit., biography, and doctrine of James, §§ 27 and 69.

The Epistle of James the Brother of the Lord was written, no doubt, from Jerusalem, the metropolis of the ancient theocracy and Jewish Christianity, where the author labored and died a martyr at the head of the mother church of Christendom and as the last connecting link between the old and the new dispensation. It is addressed to the Jews and Jewish Christians of the dispersion before the final doom in the year 70.

It strongly resembles the Gospel of Matthew, and echoes the Sermon on the Mount in the fresh, vigorous, pithy, proverbial, and sententious style of oriental wisdom. It exhorts the readers to good works of faith, warns them against dead orthodoxy, covetousness, pride, and worldliness, and comforts them in view of present and future trials and persecutions. It is eminently practical and free from subtle theological questions. It preaches a religion of good works which commends itself to the approval of God and all good men. It represents the primary stage of Christian doctrine. It takes no notice of the circumcision controversy, the Jerusalem compromise, and the later conflicts of the apostolic age. Its doctrine of justification is no protest against that of Paul, but prior to it, and presents the subject from a less developed, yet eminently practical aspect, and against the error of a barren monotheism rather than Pharisaical legalism, which Paul had in view. It is probably the oldest of the New Testament books, meagre in doctrine, but rich in comfort and lessons of holy living based on faith in Jesus Christ, "the Lord of glory." It contains more reminiscences of the words of Christ than any other epistle.(259) Its leading idea is "the perfect law of freedom," or the law of love revealed in Christ.

Luther’s harsh, unjust, and unwise judgment of this Epistle has been condemned by his own church, and reveals a defect in his conception of the doctrine of justification which was the natural result of his radical war with the Romish error.

Peter.

See on the lit., biography, and theology of Peter, §§ 25, 26, and 70.

The First Epistle of Peter, dated from Babylon,(260) belongs to the later life of the apostle, when his ardent natural temper was deeply humbled, softened, and sanctified by the work of grace. It was written to churches in several provinces of Asia Minor, composed of Jewish and Gentile Christians together, and planted mainly by Paul and his fellow-laborers; and was sent by the hands of Silvanus, a former companion of Paul. It consists of precious consolations, and exhortations to a holy walk after the example of Christ, to joyful hope of the heavenly inheritance, to patience under the persecutions already raging or impending. It gives us the fruit of a rich spiritual experience, and is altogether worthy of Peter and his mission to tend the flock of God under Christ, the chief shepherd of souls.(261)

It attests also the essential agreement of Peter with the doctrine of the Gentile apostle, in which the readers had been before instructed (1 Pet. 5:12). This accords with the principle of Peter professed at the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:11) that we are saved without the yoke of the law, "through the grace of the Lord Jesus." His doctrinal system, however, precedes that of Paul and is independent of it, standing between James and Paul. Peculiar to him is the doctrine of the descent of Christ into Hades (1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6; comp. Acts 2:32), which contains the important truth of the universal intent of the atonement. Christ died for all men, for those who lived before as well as after his coming, and he revealed himself to the spirits in the realm of Hades. Peter also warns against hierarchical ambition in prophetic anticipation of the abuse of his name and his primacy among the apostles.

The Second Epistle of Peter is addressed, shortly before the author’s death, as a sort of last will and testament, to the same churches as the first. It contains a renewed assurance of his agreement with his "beloved brother Paul," to whose Epistles he respectfully refers, yet with the significant remark (true in itself, yet often abused by Romanists) that there are in them "some things hard to be understood" (2 Pet. 3:15, 16). As Peter himself receives in one of these Epistles (Gal. 2:11) a sharp rebuke for his inconsistency at Antioch (which may be included in the hard things), this affectionate allusion proves how thoroughly the Spirit of Christ had, through experience, trained him to humility, meekness, and self-denial. The Epistle exhorts the readers to diligence, virtue, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly love, and brotherly kindness; refers to the Transfiguration on the Mount, where the author witnessed the majesty of Christ, and to the prophetic word inspired by the Holy Spirit; warns against antinomian errors; corrects a mistake concerning the second coming; exhorts them to prepare for the day of the Lord by holy living, looking for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness; and closes with the words: "Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory both now and forever."

The second Epistle is reckoned by Eusebius among the seven Antilegomena, and its Petrine authorship is doubted or denied, in whole or in part, by many eminent divines(262) but defended by competent critics.(263) The chief objections are: the want of early attestation, the reference to a collection of the Pauline Epistles, the polemic against Gnostic errors, some peculiarities of style, and especially the apparent dependence of the second chapter on the Epistle of Jude.

On the other hand, the Epistle, at least the first and third chapters, contains nothing which Peter might not have written, and the allusion to the scene of transfiguration admits only the alternative: either Peter, or a forger. It seems morally impossible that a forger should have produced a letter so full of spiritual beauty and unction, and expressly denouncing all cunning fabrications. It may have been enlarged by the editor after Peter’s death. But the whole breathes an apostolic spirit, and could not well be spared from the New Testament. It is a worthy valedictory of the aged apostle awaiting his martyrdom, and with its still valid warnings against internal dangers from false Christianity, it forms a suitable complement to the first Epistle, which comforts the Christians amidst external dangers from heathen and Jewish persecutors.

Jude.

The Epistle of Jude, a, "brother of James" (the Just),(264) is very short, and strongly resembles 2 Peter 2, but differs from it by an allusion to the remarkable apocryphal book of Enoch and the legend of the dispute of Michael with the devil about the body of Moses. It seems to be addressed to the same churches and directed against the same Gnostic heretics. It is a solemn warning against the antinomian and licentious tendencies which revealed themselves between a.d. 60 and 70. Origen remarks that it is "of few lines, but rich in words of heavenly wisdom." The style is fresh and vigorous.

The Epistle of Jude belongs likewise to the Eusebian Antilegomena, and has signs of post-apostolic origin, yet may have been written by Jude, who was not one of the Twelve, though closely connected with apostolic circles. A forger would hardly have written under the name of a "brother of James" rather than a brother of Christ or an apostle.

The time and place of composition are unknown. The Tübingen critics put it down to the reign of Trajan; Renan, on the contrary, as far back as 54, wrongly supposing it to have been intended, together with the Epistle of James, as a counter-manifesto against Paul’s doctrine of free grace. But Paul condemned antinomianism as severely as James and Jude (comp. Rom. 6, and in fact all his Epistles). It is safest to say, with Bleek, that it was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, which is not alluded to (comp. Jude 14, 15).

The Epistles of John.

Comp. §§ 40–43, 83 and 84.

The First Epistle of John betrays throughout, in thought and style, the author of the fourth Gospel. It is a postscript to it, or a practical application of the lessons of the life of Christ to the wants of the church at the close of the first century. It is a circular letter of the venerable apostle to his beloved children in Asia Minor, exhorting them to a holy life of faith and love in Christ, and earnestly warning them against the Gnostic "antichrists," already existing or to come, who deny the mystery of the incarnation, sunder religion from morality, and run into Antinomian practices.

The Second and Third Epistles of John are, like the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, short private letters, one to a Christian woman by the name of Cyria, the other to one Gains, probably an officer of a congregation in Asia Minor. They belong to the seven Antilegomena, and have been ascribed by some to the "Presbyter John," a contemporary of the apostle, though of disputed existence. But the second Epistle resembles the first, almost to verbal repetition,(265) and such repetition well agrees with the familiar tradition of Jerome concerning the apostle of love, ever exhorting the congregation, in his advanced age, to love one another. The difference of opinion in the ancient church respecting them may have risen partly from their private nature and their brevity, and partly from the fact that the author styles himself, somewhat remarkably, the "elder," the "presbyter." This term, however, is probably to be taken, not in the official sense, but in the original, signifying age and dignity; for at that time John was in fact a venerable father in Christ, and must have been revered and loved as a patriarch among his "little children."

§ 88. The Epistles of Paul

Pau'lo" genovmeno: mevgisto": uJpogrammov". (Clement of Rome.)

Comp. §§ 29–36 and 71.

General Character.

Paul was the greatest worker among the apostles, not only as a missionary, but also as a writer. He "labored more than all." And we may well include in this "all" the whole body of theologians who came after him; for where shall we find an equal wealth of the profoundest thoughts on the highest themes as in Paul? We have from him thirteen Epistles; how many more were lost, we cannot even conjecture. The four most important of them are admitted to be genuine even by the most exacting and sceptical critics. They are so stamped with the individuality of Paul, and so replete with tokens of his age and surroundings, that no sane man can mistake the authorship. We might as well doubt the genuineness of Luther’s work on the Babylonian captivity, or his Small catechism. The heretic Marcion, in the first half of the second century, accepted ten, excluding only the three Pastoral Epistles which did not suit his notions.

The Pauline Epistles are pastoral addresses to congregations of his own founding (except that of Rome, and probably also that of Colossae, which were founded by his pupils), or to individuals (Timothy, Titus, Philemon). Several of them hail from prison, but breathe the same spirit of faith, hope, and joy as the others, and the last ends with a shout of victory. They proceeded from profound agitation, and yet are calm and serene. They were occasioned by the trials, dangers, and errors incident to every new congregation, and the care and anxiety of the apostle for their spiritual welfare. He had led them from the darkness of heathen idolatry and Jewish bigotry to the light of Christian truth and freedom, and raised them from the slime of depravity to the pure height of saving grace and holy living. He had no family ties, and threw the whole strength of his affections into his converts, whom he loved as tenderly as a mother can love her offspring.(266) This love to his spiritual children was inspired by his love to Christ, as his love to Christ was the response to Christ’s love for him. Nor was his love confined to the brethren: he was ready to make the greatest sacrifice for his unbelieving and persecuting fellow-Jews, as Christ himself sacrificed his life for his enemies.

His Epistles touch on every important truth and duty of the Christian religion, and illuminate them from the heights of knowledge and experience, without pretending to exhaust them. They furnish the best material for a system of dogmatics and ethics. Paul looks back to the remotest beginning before the creation, and looks out into the farthest future beyond death and the resurrection. He writes with the authority of a commissioned apostle and inspired teacher, yet, on questions of expediency, he distinguishes between the command of the Lord and his private judgment. He seems to have written rapidly and under great pressure, without correcting his first draft. If we find, with Peter, in his letters, "some things hard to be understood," even in this nineteenth century, we must remember that Paul himself bowed in reverence before the boundless ocean of God’s truth, and humbly professed to know only in part, and to see through a mirror darkly. All knowledge in this world "ends in mystery."(267) Our best systems of theology are but dim reflections of the sunlight of revelation. Infinite truths transcend our finite minds, and cannot be compressed into the pigeon-holes of logical formulas. But every good commentary adds to the understanding and strengthens the estimate of the paramount value of these Epistles.

The Chronological Order.

Paul’s Epistles were written within a period of about twelve years, between a.d. 52 or 53 and 64 or 67, when he stood at the height of his power and influence. None was composed before the Council of Jerusalem. From the date of his conversion to his second missionary journey (a.d. 37 to 52) we have no documents of his pen. The chronology of his letters can be better ascertained than that of the Gospels or Catholic Epistles, by combining internal indications with the Acts and contemporary events, such as the dates of the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia, and the procuratorship of Felix and Festus in Judaea. As to the Romans, we can determine the place, the year, and the season of composition: he sends greetings from persons in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), commends Phoebe, a deaconess of Kenchreae, the port of Corinth, and the bearer of the letter (16:1); he had not yet been in Rome (1:13), but hoped to get there after another visit to Jerusalem, on which he was about to enter, with collections from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor brethren in Judaea (15:22–29; comp. 2 Cor. 8:1–3); and from Acts we learn that on his last visit to Achaia he abode three months in Corinth, and returned to Syria between the Passover and Pentecost (Acts 20:3, 6, 16). This was his fifth and last journey to Jerusalem, where he was taken prisoner and sent to Felix in Caesarea, two years before he was followed by Festus. All these indications lead us to the spring of a.d. 58.

The chronological order is this: Thessalonians were written first, a.d. 52 or 53; then Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, between 56 and 58; then the Epistles of the captivity: Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians, between 61 and 63; last, the Pastoral Epistles, but their date is uncertain, except that the second Epistle to Timothy is his farewell letter on the eve of his martyrdom.

It is instructive to study the Epistles in their chronological order with the aid of the Acts, and so to accompany the apostle in his missionary career from Damascus to Rome, and to trace the growth of his doctrinal system from the documentary truths in Thessalonians to the height of maturity in Romans; then through the ramifications of particular topics in Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and the farewell counsels in the Pastoral Epistles.

Doctrinal Arrangement.

More important than the chronological order is the topical order, according to the prevailing object and central idea. This gives us the following groups:

Anthropological and Soteriological: Galatians and Romans.
Ethical and Ecclesiastical: First and Second Corinthians.
Christological: Colossians and Philippians.
Ecclesiological: Ephesians (in part also Corinthians).
Eschatological: Thessalonians.
Pastoral: Timothy and Titus.
Social and Personal: Philemon.

The Style.

"The style is the man." This applies with peculiar force to Paul. His style has been called "the most personal that ever existed."(268) It fitly represents the force and fire of his mind and the tender affections of his heart. He disclaims classical elegance and calls himself "rude in speech," though by no means "in knowledge." He carried the heavenly treasure in earthen vessels. But the defects are more than made up by excellences. In his very weakness the Strength of Christ was perfected. We are not lost in the admiration of the mere form, but are kept mindful of the paramount importance of the contents and the hidden depths of truth which he behind the words and defy the power of expression.

Paul’s style is manly, bold, heroic, aggressive, and warlike; yet at times tender, delicate, gentle, and winning. It is involved, irregular, and rugged, but always forcible and expressive, and not seldom rises to more than poetic beauty, as in the triumphant paean at the end of the eighth chapter of Romans, and in the ode on love (1 Cor. 13). His intense earnestness and overflowing fulness of ideas break through the ordinary rules of grammar. His logic is set on fire. He abounds in skilful arguments, bold antitheses, impetuous assaults, abrupt transitions, sudden turns, zigzag flashes, startling questions and exclamations. He is dialectical and argumentative; he likes logical particles, paradoxical phrases, and plays on words. He reasons from Scripture, from premises, from conclusions; he drives the opponent to the wall without mercy and reduces him ad absurdum, but without ever indulging in personalities. He is familiar with the sharp weapons of ridicule, irony, and sarcasm, but holds them in check and uses them rarely. He varies the argument by touching appeals to the heart and bursts of seraphic eloquence. He is never dry or dull, and never wastes words; he is brief, terse, and hits the nail on the head. His terseness makes him at times obscure, as is the case with the somewhat similar style of Thucydides, Tacitus, and Tertullian. His words are as many warriors marching on to victory and peace; they are like a mountain torrent rushing in foaming rapids over precipices, and then calmly flowing over green meadows, or like a thunderstorm ending in a refreshing shower and bright sunshine.

Paul created the vocabulary of scientific theology and put a profounder meaning into religious and moral terms than they ever had before. We cannot speak of sin, flesh, grace, mercy, peace, redemption, atonement, justification, glorification, church, faith, love, without bearing testimony to the ineffaceable effect which that greatest of Jewish rabbis and Christian teachers has had upon the language of Christendom.

Notes.

Chrysostom justly compares the Epistles of Paul to metals more precious than gold and to unfailing fountains which flow the more abundantly the more we drink of them.

Beza: "When I more closely consider the whole genius and character of Paul’s style, I must confess that I have found no such sublimity of speaking in Plato himself ... no exquisiteness of vehemence in Demosthenes equal to his."

Ewald begins his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles (Göttingen, 1857) with these striking and truthful remarks: "Considering these Epistles for themselves only, and apart from the general significance of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, we must still admit that, in the whole history of all centuries and of all nations, there is no other set of writings of similar extent, which, as creations of the fugitive moment, have proceeded from such severe troubles of the age, and such profound pains and sufferings of the author himself, and yet contain such an amount of healthfulness, serenity, and vigor of immortal genius, and touch with such clearness and certainty on the very highest truths of human aspiration and action .... The smallest as well as the greatest of these Epistles seem to have proceeded from the fleeting moments of this earthly life only to enchain all eternity they were born of anxiety and bitterness of human strife, to set forth in brighter lustre and with higher certainty their superhuman grace and beauty. The divine assurance and firmness of the old prophets of Israel, the all-transcending glory and immediate spiritual presence of the Eternal King and Lord, who had just ascended to heaven, and all the art and culture of a ripe and wonderfully excited age, seem to have joined, as it were, in bringing forth the new creation of these Epistles of the times which were destined to last for all times."

On the style of Paul, see my Companion, etc., pp. 62 sqq. To the testimonies there given I add the judgment of Reuss (Geschichte der h. Schr. N. T., I. 67): "Still more [than the method] is the style of these Epistles the true expression of the personality of the author. The defect of classical correctness and rhetorical finish is more than compensated by the riches of language and the fulness of expression. The condensation of construction demands not reading simply, but studying. Broken sentences, ellipses, parentheses, leaps in the argumentation, allegories, rhetorical figures express inimitably all the moods of a wide-awake and cultured mind, all the affections of a rich and deep heart, and betray everywhere a pen at once bold, and yet too slow for the thought. Antitheses, climaxes, exclamations, questions keep up the attention, and touching effusions win the heart of the reader."

§ 89. The Epistles to the Thessalonians.

Thessalonica,(269) a large and wealthy commercial city of Macedonia, the capital of "Macedonia secunda," the seat of a Roman proconsul and quaestor, and inhabited by many Jews, was visited by Paul on his second missionary tour, a.d. 52 or 53, and in a few weeks he succeeded, amid much persecution, in founding a flourishing church composed chiefly of Gentiles. From this centre Christianity spread throughout the neighborhood, and during the middle ages Thessalonica was, till its capture by the Turks (a.d. 1430), a bulwark of the Byzantine empire and Oriental Christendom, and largely instrumental in the conversion of the Slavonians and Bulgarians; hence it received the designation of "the Orthodox City." It numbered many learned archbishops, and still has more remains of ecclesiastical antiquity than any other city in Greece, although its cathedral is turned into a mosque.

To this church Paul, as its spiritual father, full of affection for his inexperienced children, wrote in familiar conversational style two letters from Corinth, during his first sojourn in that city, to comfort them in their trials and to correct certain misapprehensions of his preaching concerning the glorious return of Christ, and the preceding development of "the man of sin" or Antichrist, and "the mystery of lawlessness," then already at work, but checked by a restraining power. The hope of the near advent had degenerated into an enthusiastic adventism which demoralized the every-day life. He now taught them that the Lord will not come so soon as they expected, that it was not a matter of mathematical calculation, and that in no case should the expectation check industry and zeal, but rather stimulate them. Hence his exhortations to a sober, orderly, diligent, and prayerful life.

It is remarkable that the first Epistles of Paul should treat of the last topic in the theological system and anticipate the end at the beginning. But the hope of Christ’s speedy coming was, before the destruction of Jerusalem, the greatest source of consolation to the infant church amid trial and persecution, and the church at Thessalonica was severely tried in its infancy, and Paul driven away. It is also remarkable that to a young church in Greece rather than to that in Rome should have first been revealed the beginning of that mystery of anti-Christian lawlessness which was then still restrained, but was to break out in its full force in Rome.(270)

The objections of Baur to the genuineness of these Epistles, especially the second, are futile in the judgment of the best critics.(271)

The Theoretical Theme: The parousia of Christ. The Practical Theme: Christian hope in the midst of persecution.

Leading Thoughts: This is the will of God, even your sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3). Sorrow not as the rest who have no hope (4:13). The Lord will descend from heaven, and so shall we ever be with the Lord (4:16, 17). The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night (5:2). Let us watch and be sober (5:6). Put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet, the hope of salvation (5:8). Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks (5:16). Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil (5:21, 22). The Lord will come to be glorified in his saints (2 Thess. 1:10). But the falling away must come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (2:3, 4). The mystery of lawlessness doth already work, but is restrained for the time (2:7). Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours (2:15). If any will not work, neither let him eat (3:10). Be not weary in well-doing (3:13). The God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming (ejn th'/ parousiva/) our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23).

§ 90. The Epistles to the Corinthians.

Corinth was the metropolis of Achaia, on the bridge of two seas, an emporium of trade between the East and the West—wealthy, luxurious, art-loving, devoted to the worship of Aphrodite. Here Paul established the most important church in Greece, and labored, first eighteen months, then three months, with, perhaps, a short visit between (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1). The church presented all the lights and shades of the Greek nationality under the influence of the Gospel. It was rich in "all utterance and all knowledge," "coming behind in no gift," but troubled by the spirit of sect and party, infected with a morbid desire for worldly wisdom and brilliant eloquence, with scepticism and moral levity—nay, to some extent polluted with gross vices, so that even the Lord’s table and love feasts were desecrated by excesses, and that the apostle, in his absence, found himself compelled to excommunicate a particularly offensive member who disgraced the Christian profession.(272) It was distracted by Judaizers and other troublers, who abused the names of Cephas, James, Apollos, and even of Christ (as extra-Christians), for sectarian ends.(273) A number of questions of morality and casuistry arose in that lively, speculative, and excitable community, which the apostle had to answer from a distance before his second (or third) and last visit.

Hence, these Epistles abound in variety of topics, and show the extraordinary versatility of the mind of the writer, and his practical wisdom in dealing with delicate and complicated questions and unscrupulous opponents. For every aberration he has a word of severe censure, for every danger a word of warning, for every weakness a word of cheer and sympathy, for every returning offender a word of pardon and encouragement. The Epistles lack the unity of design which characterizes Galatians and Romans. They are ethical, ecclesiastical, pastoral, and personal, rather than dogmatic and theological, although some most important doctrines, as that on the resurrection, are treated more fully than elsewhere.

I. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was composed in Ephesus shortly before Paul’s departure for Greece, in the spring of a.d. 57.(274) It had been preceded by another one, now lost (1 Cor. 5:9). It was an answer to perplexing questions concerning various disputes and evils which disturbed the peace and spotted the purity of the congregation. The apostle contrasts the foolish wisdom of the gospel with the wise folly of human philosophy; rebukes sectarianism; unfolds the spiritual unity and harmonious variety of the church of Christ, her offices and gifts of grace, chief among which is love; warns against carnal impurity as a violation of the temple of God; gives advice concerning marriage and celibacy without binding the conscience (having "no commandment of the Lord," 7:25); discusses the question of meat sacrificed to idols, on which Jewish and Gentile Christians, scrupulous and liberal brethren, were divided; enjoins the temporal support of the ministry as a Christian duty of gratitude for greater spiritual mercies received; guards against improprieties of dress; explains the design and corrects the abuses of the Lord’s Supper; and gives the fullest exposition of the doctrine of the resurrection on the basis of the resurrection of Christ and his personal manifestations to the disciples, and last, to himself at his conversion. Dean Stanley says of this Epistle that it "gives a clearer insight than any other portion of the New Testament into the institutions, feelings and opinions of the church of the earlier period of the apostolic age. It is in every sense the earliest chapter of the history of the Christian church." The last, however, is not quite correct. The Corinthian chapter was preceded by the Jerusalem and Antioch chapters.

Leading Thoughts: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you (1 Cor. 1:13) ? It was God’s pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching [not through foolish preaching] to save them that believe (1:21). We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God (1:24). I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus, and him crucified (2:2). The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (2:14). Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (3:11). Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroy the temple of God, him shall God destroy (3:16, 17). Let a man so account of ourselves as of ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God (4:1). The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power (4:20). Purge out the old leaven (5:7). All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient (6:12). Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ (6:15) ? Flee fornication (6:18). Glorify God in your body (6:20). Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God (7:19). Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called (7:20). Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men (7:23). Take heed lest this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak (8:9). If meat [or wine] maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh [and drink no wine] for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble (8:13). They who proclaim the gospel shall live of the gospel (9:14). Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel (9:16). I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some (9 22). Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (10:12). All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient. Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor’s good (10:23). Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord ... He that eateth and drinketh eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself if he discern (discriminate) not the body (11:27–29). There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit (12:4). Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love (13:13). Follow after love (14:1). Let all things be done unto edifying (14:26). By the grace of God I am what I am (15:9). If Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins (15:17). As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (15:22). God shall be all in all (15:28). If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body (15:44). This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (15:54). Be ye steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord (15:58). Upon the first day in the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper (16:2). Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all that ye do be done in love (16:13, 14.).

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written in the summer or autumn of the same year, 57, from some place in Macedonia, shortly before the author’s intended personal visit to the metropolis of Achaia.(275) It evidently proceeded from profound agitation, and opens to us very freely the personal character and feelings, the official trials and joys, the noble pride and deep humility, the holy earnestness and fervent love, of the apostle. It gives us the deepest insight into his heart, and is almost an autobiography. He had, in the meantime, heard fuller news, through Titus, of the state of the church, the effects produced by his first Epistle, and the intrigues of the emissaries of the Judaizing party, who followed him everywhere and tried to undermine his work. This unchristian opposition compelled him, in self-defence, to speak of his ministry and his personal experience with overpowering eloquence. He also urges again upon the congregation the duty of charitable collections for the poor. The Epistle is a mine of pastoral wisdom.

Leading Thoughts: As the sufferings of Christ abound unto us, even so our comfort also aboundeth through Christ (2 Cor. 1:5). As ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also are ye of the comfort (1:7). Not that we have lordship over your faith, but are helpers of your joy (1:24). Who is sufficient for these things (2:16)? Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men (3:2). Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God (3:5). The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (3:6). The Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (3:17). We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake (4:5). We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves (4:7). Our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory (4:17). We know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens (5:1). We walk by faith, not by sight (5:7). We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ (5:10). The love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died (5:14). And he died for all, that they who live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again (5:15). If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new (5:17). God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation (5:19). We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God (5:20). Him who knew no sin he made to be sin in our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (5:21). Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers (6:14). I am filled with comfort, I overflow with joy in all our affliction (7:4). Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, but the sorrow of the world worketh death (7:10). Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich (8:9). He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully (9:6). God loveth a cheerful giver (9:7). He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord (10:17). Not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth (10:18). My grace is sufficient for thee; for my power is made perfect in weakness (12:9). We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (13:8). The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all (13:14).

§ 91. The Epistles to the Galatians.

Comp. the introduction to my Com. on Gal. (1882).

Galatians and Romans discuss the doctrines of sin and redemption, and the relation of the law and the gospel. They teach salvation by free grace and justification by faith, Christian universalism in opposition to Jewish particularism, evangelical freedom versus legalistic bondage. But Galatians is a rapid sketch and the child of deep emotion, Romans an elaborate treatise and the mature product of calm reflexion. The former Epistle is polemical against foreign intruders and seducers, the latter is irenical and composed in a serene frame of mind. The one rushes along like a mountain torrent and foaming cataract, the other flows like a majestic river through a boundless prairie; and yet it is the same river, like the Nile at the Rapids and below Cairo, or the Rhine in the Grisons and the lowlands of Germany and Holland, or the St. Lawrence at Niagara Falls and below Montreal and Quebec where it majestically branches out into the ocean.

It is a remarkable fact that the two races represented by the readers of these Epistles—the Celtic and the Latin—have far departed from the doctrines taught in them and exchanged the gospel freedom for legal bondage; thus repeating the apostasy of the sanguine, generous, impressible, mercurial, fickle-minded Galatians. The Pauline gospel was for centuries ignored, misunderstood, and (in spite of St. Augustin) cast out at last by Rome, as Christianity itself was cast out by Jerusalem of old. But the overruling wisdom of God made the rule of the papacy a training-school of the Teutonic races of the North and West for freedom; as it had turned the unbelief of the Jews to the conversion of the Gentiles. Those Epistles, more than any book of the New Testament, inspired the Reformation of the Sixteenth century, and are to this day the Gibraltar of evangelical Protestantism. Luther, under a secondary inspiration, reproduced Galatians in his war against the "Babylonian captivity of the church;" the battle for Christian freedom was won once more, and its fruits are enjoyed by nations of which neither Paul nor Luther ever heard.

The Epistle to the Galatians (Gauls, originally from the borders of the Rhine and Moselle, who had migrated to Asia Minor) was written after Paul’s second visit to them, either during his long residence in Ephesus (a.d. 54–57), or shortly afterwards on his second journey to Corinth, possibly from Corinth, certainly before the Epistle to the Romans. It was occasioned by the machinations of the Judaizing teachers who undermined his apostolic authority and misled his converts into an apostasy from the gospel of free grace to a false gospel of legal bondage, requiring circumcision as a condition of justification and full membership of the church. It is an "Apologia pro vita sua," a personal and doctrinal self-vindication. He defends his independent apostleship (Gal.1:1–2:14), and his teaching (2:15–4:31), and closes with exhortations to hold fast to Christian freedom without abusing it, and to show the fruits of faith by holy living (Gal. 5–6).

The Epistle reveals, in clear, strong colors, both the difference and the harmony among the Jewish and Gentile apostles—a difference ignored by the old orthodoxy, which sees only the harmony, and exaggerated by modern scepticism, which sees only the difference. It anticipates, in grand fundamental outlines, a conflict which is renewed from time to time in the history of different churches, and, on the largest scale, in the conflict between Petrine Romanism and Pauline Protestantism. The temporary collision of the two leading apostles in Antioch is typical of the battle of the Reformation.

At the same time Galatians is an Irenicon and sounds the key-note of a final adjustment of all doctrinal and ritualistic controversies. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love" (5:6). "And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God" (6:16).

Central Idea: Evangelical freedom.

Key-Words: For freedom Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage (5:1). A man is not justified by works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ (2:16). I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live but Christ liveth in me (2:20). Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (3:13). Ye were called for freedom, only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another (5:13). Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh (5:16).

§ 92. The Epistle to the Romans.

On the church in Rome, see § 36 (pp. 360 sqq.); on the theology of the Ep. to the Rom., § 71 (pp. 525 sqq.).

A few weeks before his fifth and last journey to Jerusalem, Paul sent, as a forerunner of his intended personal visit, a letter to the Christians in the capital of the world, which was intended by Providence to become the Jerusalem of Christendom. Foreseeing its future importance, the apostle chose for his theme: The gospel the power of God unto salvation to every believer, the Jew first, and also the Gentile (Rom. 1:16, 17). Writing to the philosophical Greeks, he contrasts the wisdom of God with the wisdom of man. To the world-ruling Romans he represents Christianity as the power of God which by spiritual weapons will conquer even conquering Rome. Such a bold idea must have struck a Roman statesman as the wild dream of a visionary or madman, but it was fulfilled in the ultimate conversion of the empire after three centuries of persecution, and is still in the process of ever-growing fulfilment.

In the exposition of his theme the apostle shows: (1) that all men are in need of salvation, being under the power of sin and exposed to the judgment of the righteous God, the Gentiles not only (1:18–32), but also the Jews, who are still more guilty, having sinned against the written law and extraordinary privileges (2:1–3:20); (2) that salvation is accomplished by Jesus Christ, his atoning death and triumphant resurrection, freely offered to all on the sole condition of faith, and applied in the successive acts of justification, sanctification, and glorification (3:21–8:17); (3) that salvation was offered first to the Jews, and, being rejected by them in unbelief, passed on to the Gentiles, but will return again to the Jews after the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in (Rom. 9–11); (4) that we should show our gratitude for so great a salvation by surrendering ourselves to the service of God, which is true freedom (Rom. 12–16).

The salutations in Rom. 16, the remarkable variations of the manuscripts in 15:33; 16:20, 24, 27, and the omission of the words "in Rome," 1:7, 15, in Codex G, are best explained by the conjecture that copies of the letter were also sent to Ephesus (where Aquila and Priscilla were at that time, 1 Cor. 16:19, and again, some years afterwards, 2 Tim. 4:19), and perhaps to other churches with appropriate conclusions, all of which are preserved in the present form.(276)

This letter stands justly at the head of the Pauline Epistles. It is more comprehensive and systematic than the others, and admirably adapted to the mistress of the world, which was to become also the mistress of Western Christendom. It is the most remarkable production of the most remarkable man. It is his heart. It contains his theology, theoretical and practical, for which he lived and died. It gives the clearest and fullest exposition of the doctrines of sin and grace and the best possible solution of the universal dominion of sin and death in the universal redemption by the second Adam. Without this redemption the fall is indeed the darkest enigma and irreconcilable with the idea of divine justice and goodness. Paul reverently lifts the veil from the mysteries of eternal foreknowledge and foreordination and God’s gracious designs in the winding course of history which will end at last in the triumph of his wisdom and mercy and the greatest good to mankind. Luther calls Romans "the chief book of the New Testament and the purest Gospel," Coleridge: "the profoundest book in existence." Meyer: "the greatest and richest of all the apostolic works," Godet (best of all): "the cathedral of the Christian faith."

Theme: Christianity the power of free and universal salvation, on condition of faith.

Leading Thoughts: They are all under sin (Rom. 3:9). Through the law cometh the knowledge of sin (3:20). Man is justified by faith apart from works of the law (3:28). Being justified by faith we have (e[comen or, let us have, e[cwmen) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (5:1). As through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned (5:12): [so through one man righteousness entered into the world, and life through righteousness, and so life passed unto all men on condition that they believe in Christ and by faith become partakers of his righteousness]. Where sin abounded, grace did abound much more exceedingly: that as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (5:20, 21). Reckon yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus (6:11). There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (8:1). To them that love God all things work together for good (8:28). Whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son ... and whom he foreordained them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified (8:29, 30). If God is for us, who is against us (8:31)? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ (8:35)? Hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved (11:25). God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all (11:32). Of Him, and through Him, and unto Him are all things (11:36). Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service (12:1).

§ 93. The Epistles of the Captivity.

During his confinement in Rome, from a.d. 61 to 63, while waiting the issue of his trial on the charge of being "a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5), the aged apostle composed four Epistles, to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, and Philippians. He thus turned the prison into a pulpit, sent inspiration and comfort to his distant congregations, and rendered a greater service to future ages than he could have done by active labor. He gloried in being a "prisoner of Christ." He experienced the blessedness of persecution for righteousness’ sake (Matt. 5:10), and "the peace of God which passeth all understanding" (Phil. 4:7). He often refers to his bonds, and the coupling chain or hand-cuff (a{lusi") by which, according to Roman custom, he was with his right wrist fettered day and night to a soldier; one relieving the other and being in turn chained to the apostle, so that his imprisonment became a means for the spread of the gospel "throughout the whole praetorian guard."(277) He had the privilege of living in his own hired lodging (probably in the neighborhood of the praetorian camp, outside of the walls, to the northeast of Rome), and of free intercourse with his companions and distant congregations.

Paul does not mention the place of his captivity, which extended through four years and a half (two at Caesarea, two at Rome, and six months spent on the stormy voyage and at Malta). The traditional view dates the four Epistles from the Roman captivity, and there is no good reason to depart from it. Several modern critics assign one or more to Caesarea, where he cannot be supposed to have been idle, and where he was nearer to his congregations in Asia Minor.(278) But in Caesarea Paul looked forward to Rome and to Spain; while in the Epistles of the captivity he expresses the hope of soon visiting Colossae and Philippi. In Rome he had the best opportunity of correspondence with his distant friends, and enjoyed a degree of freedom which may have been denied him in Caesarea. In Philippians he sends greetings from converts in "Caesar’s household" (Phil. 4:22), which naturally points to Rome; and the circumstances and surroundings of the other Epistles are very much alike.

Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were composed about the same time and sent by the same messengers (Tychicus and Onesimus) to Asia Minor, probably toward the close of the Roman captivity, for in Philemon 22, he engaged a lodging in Colosae in the prospect of a speedy release and visit to the East.

Philippians we place last in the order of composition, or, at all events, in the second year of the Roman captivity; for some time must have elapsed after Paul’s arrival in Rome before the gospeI could spread "throughout the whole praetorian guard" (Phil. 1:13), and before the Philippians, at a distance of seven hundred miles from Rome (a full month’s journey in those days), could receive news from him and send him contributions through Epaphroditus, besides other communications which seem to have preceded the Epistle.(279)

On the other hand, the priority of the composition of Philippians has been recently urged on purely internal evidence, namely, its doctrinal affinity with the preceding anti-Judaic Epistles; while Colossians and Ephesians presuppose the rise of the Gnostic heresy and thus form the connecting link between them and the Pastoral Epistles, in which the same heresy appears in a more matured form.(280) But Ephesians has likewise striking affinities in thought and language with Romans in the doctrine of justification (comp. Eph. 2:8), and with Romans 12 and 1 Cor. 12 and 1 Cor. 14) in the doctrine of the church. As to the heresy, Paul had predicted its rise in Asia Minor several years before in his farewell to the Ephesian elders. And, finally, the grateful and joyful tone of Philippians falls in most naturally with the lofty and glorious conception of the church of Christ as presented in Ephesians.

§ 94. The Epistle to the Colossians.

The Churches in Phrygia.

The cities of Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis are mentioned together as seats of Christian churches in the closing chapter of Colossians, and the Epistle may be considered as being addressed to all, for the apostle directs that it be read also in the churches of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:13–16). They were situated within a few miles of each other in the valley of the Lycus (a tributary of the Maeander) in Phrygia on the borders of Lydia, and belonged, under the Roman rule, to the proconsular province of Asia Minor.

Laodicea was the most important of the three, and enjoyed metropolitan rank; she was destroyed by a disastrous earthquake a.d. 61 or 65, but rebuilt from her own resources without the customary aid from Rome.(281) The church of Laodicea is the last of the seven churches addressed in the Apocalypse (Rev. 3:14–22), and is described as rich and proud and lukewarm. It harbored in the middle of the fourth century (after 344) a council which passed an important act on the canon, forbidding the public reading of any but "the canonical books of the New and Old Testaments" (the list of these books is a later addition), a prohibition which was confirmed and adopted by later councils in the East and the West.

Hierapolis was a famous watering-place, surrounded by beautiful scenery,(282) and the birthplace of the lame slave Epictetus, who, with Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, ranks among the first heathen moralists, and so closely resembles the lofty maxims of the New Testament that some writers have assumed, though without historic foundation, a passing acquaintance between him and Paul or his pupil Epaphras of Colossae.(283) The church of Hierapolis figures in the post-apostolic age as the bishopric of Papias (a friend of Polycarp) and Apollinaris.

Colossae,(284) once likewise famous, was at the time of Paul the smallest of the three neighboring cities, and has almost disappeared from the earth; while magnificent ruins of temples, theatres, baths, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres still testify to the former wealth and prosperity of Laodicea and Hierapolis. The church of Colossae was the least important of the churches to which Paul addressed an Epistle, and it is scarcely mentioned in post-apostolic times; but it gave rise to a heresy which shook the church in the second century, and this Epistle furnished the best remedy against it.

There was a large Jewish population in Phrygia, since Antiochus the Great had despotically transplanted two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia and Mesopotamia to that region. It thus became, in connection with the sensuous and mystic tendency of the Phrygian character, a nursery of religious syncretism and various forms of fanaticism.

Paul and the Colossians.

Paul passed twice through Phrygia, on his second and third missionary tours,(285) but probably not through the valley of the Lycus. Luke does not say that he established churches there, and Paul himself seems to include the Colossians and Laodiceans among those who had not seen his face in the flesh.(286) He names Epaphras, of Colossae, his "dear fellow-servant" and "fellow-prisoner," as the teacher and faithful minister of the Christians in that place.(287) But during his long residence in Ephesus (a.d. 54–57) and from his imprisonment he exercised a general supervision over all the churches in Asia. After his death they passed under the care of John, and in the second century they figure prominently in the Gnostic, Paschal, Chiliastic, and Montanistic controversies.

Paul heard of the condition of the church at Colossae through Epaphras, his pupil, and Onesimus, a runaway slave. He sent through Tychicus (Col. 4:7) a letter to the church, which was also intended for the Laodiceans (4:16); at the same time he sent through Onesimus a private letter of commendation to his master, Philemon, a member of the church of Colossae. He also directed the Colossians to procure and read "the letter from Laodicea,"(288) which is most probably the evangelical Epistle to the Ephesians which was likewise transmitted through Tychicus. He had special reasons for writing to the Colossians and to Philemon, and a general reason for writing to all the churches in the region of Ephesus; and he took advantage of the mission of Tychicus to secure both ends. In this way the three Epistles are closely connected in time and aim. They would mutually explain and confirm one another.

The Colossian Heresy.

The special reason which prompted Paul to write to the Colossians was the rise of a new heresy among them which soon afterward swelled into a mighty and dangerous movement in the ancient church, as rationalism has done in modern times. It differed from the Judaizing heresy which he opposed in Galatians and Corinthians, as Essenism differed from Phariseeism, or as legalism differs from mysticism. The Colossian heresy was an Essenic and ascetic type of Gnosticism; it derived its ritualistic and practical elements from Judaism, its speculative elements from heathenism; it retained circumcision, the observance of Sabbaths and new moons, and the distinction of meats and drinks; but it mixed with it elements of oriental mysticism and theosophy, the heathen notion of an evil principle, the worship of subordinate spirits, and an ascetic struggle for emancipation from the dominion of matter. It taught an antagonism between God and matter and interposed between them a series of angelic mediators as objects of worship. It thus contained the essential features of Gnosticism, but in its incipient and rudimental form, or a Christian Essenism in its transition to Gnosticism. In its ascetic tendency it resembles that of the weak brethren in the Roman congregation (Rom. 14:5, 6, 21). Cerinthus, in the age of John, represents a more developed stage and forms the link between the Colossian heresy and the post-apostolic Gnosticism.(289)

The Refutation.

Paul refutes this false philosophy calmly and respectfully by the true doctrine of the Person of Christ, as the one Mediator between God and men, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And he meets the false asceticism based upon the dualistic principle with the doctrine of the purification of the heart by faith and love as the effectual cure of all moral evil.

The Gnostic and the Pauline Pleroma.

"Pleroma" or "fulness" is an important term in Colossians and Ephesians.(290) Paul uses it in common with the Gnostics, and this has been made an argument for the post-apostolic origin of the two Epistles. He did, of course, not borrow it from the Gnostics; for he employs it repeatedly in his other Epistles with slight variations. It must have had a fixed theological meaning, as it is not explained. It cannot be traced to Philo, who, however, uses "Logos" in a somewhat similar sense for the plenitude of Divine powers.

Paul speaks of "the pleroma of the earth," i.e., all that fills the earth or is contained in it (1 Cor. 10:26, 28, in a quotation from Ps. 24:1); "the pleroma," i.e., the fulfilment or accomplishment, "of the law," which is love (Rom. 13:10(291)); "the pleroma," i.e., the fulness or abundance, "of the blessing of Christ" ( Rom. 15:29) "the pleroma," or full measure, "of the time" ( Gal. 4:4; comp. Eph. 1:10; Mark 1:15; Luke 21:24); "the pleroma of the Gentiles," meaning their full number, or whole body, but not necessarily all individuals (Rom. 11:25); "the pleroma of the Godhead," i.e., the fulness or plenitude of all Divine attributes and energies (Col. 1:19; 2:9); "the pleroma of Christ," which is the church as the body of Christ (Eph. 1:23; comp. 3:19; 4:13).

In the Gnostic systems, especially that of Valentinus, "pleroma" signifies the intellectual and spiritual world, including all Divine powers or aeons, in opposition to the "kenoma," i.e., the void, the emptiness, the material world. The distinction was based on the dualistic principle of an eternal antagonism between spirit and matter, which led the more earnest Gnostics to an extravagant asceticism, the frivolous ones to wild antinomianism. They included in the pleroma a succession of emanations from the Divine abyss, which form the links between the infinite and the finite; and they lowered the dignity of Christ by making him simply the highest of those intermediate aeons. The burden of the Gnostic speculation was always the question: Whence is the world? and whence is evil? It sought the solution in a dualism between mind and matter, the pleroma and the kenoma; but this is no solution at all.

In opposition to this error, Paul teaches, on a thoroughly monotheistic basis, that Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (ei'kw;n tou' qeou' tou' ajoravtou Col. 1:15; comp. 2 Cor. 4:4—an expression often used by Philo as a description of the Logos, and of the personified Wisdom, in Wisd. 7:26); that he is the preëxistent and incarnate pleroma or plenitude of Divine powers and attributes; that in him the whole fulness of the Godhead, that is, of the Divine nature itself,(292) dwells bodily-wise or corporeally (swmatikw'"), as the soul dwells in the human body; and that he is the one universal and all-sufficient Mediator, through whom the whole universe of things visible and invisible, were made, in whom all things hold together (or cohere, sunevsthken) , and through whom the Father is pleased to reconcile all things to himself.

The Christology of Colossians approaches very closely to the Christology of John; for he represents Christ as the incarnate "Logos" or Revealer of God, who dwelt among us "full (plhvrh"¼ of grace and truth," and out of whose Divine sfulness" »ejk tou' plhrwvmato" aujtou') we all have received grace for grace (John 1:1, 14, 16). Paul and John fully agree in teaching the eternal preëxistence of Christ, and his agency in the creation and preservation of the world (Col. 1:15–17; John 1:3). According to Paul, He is "the first-born or first-begotten" of all creation (prwtovtoko" pavsh" ktivsew", Col. 1:15, distinct from prwtovktisto", first-created), i.e., prior and superior to the whole created world, or eternal; according to John He is "the only-begotten Son" of the Father. (oJ monogenh;" uiJov"(293) John 1:14, 18; comp. 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), before and above all created children of God. The former term denotes Christ’s unique relation to the world, the latter his unique relation to the Father.

The Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Colossians will be discussed in the next section in connection with the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Theme: Christ all in all. The true gnosis and the false gnosis. True and false asceticism.

Leading Thoughts: Christ is the image of the invisible God, the first-begotten of all creation (Col. 1:15).—In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (2:3).—In him dwelleth all the fulness (to; plhvrwma) of the Godhead bodily (2:9).—If ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God (3:1).—When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory (3:4).—Christ is all, and in all (3:11).—Above all things put on love, which is the bond of perfectness (3:14).—Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus (3:17).

§ 95. The Epistle to the Ephesians.

Contents.

When Paul took leave of the Ephesian Elders at Miletus, in the spring of the year 58, he earnestly and affectionately exhorted them, in view of threatening disturbances from within, to take heed unto themselves and to feed "the church of the Lord, which he acquired with his own blood."(294)

This strikes the key-note of the Epistle to the Ephesians. It is a doctrinal and practical exposition of the idea of the church, as the house of God (Eph. 2:20–22), the spotless bride of Christ (5:25–27), the mystical body of Christ (4:12–16), "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all" (1:23). The pleroma of the Godhead resides in Christ corporeally; so the pleroma of Christ, the plenitude of his graces and energies, resides in the church, as his body. Christ’s fulness is God’s fulness; the church’s fulness is Christ’s fulness. God is reflected in Christ, Christ is reflected in the church.

This is an ideal conception, a celestial vision, as it were, of the church in its future state of perfection. Paul himself represents the present church militant as a gradual growth unto the complete stature of Christ’s fulness (4:13–16). We look in vain for an actual church which is free from spot or wrinkle or blemish (5:27). Even the apostolic church was full of defects, as we may learn from every Epistle of the New Testament. The church consists of individual Christians, and cannot be complete till they are complete. The body grows and matures with its several members. "It is not yet made manifest what we shall be" (1 John 3:2).

Nevertheless, Paul’s church is not a speculation or fiction, like Plato’s Republic or Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. It is a reality in Christ, who is absolutely holy, and is spiritually and dynamically present in his church always, as the soul is present in the members of the body. And it sets before us the high standard and aim to be kept constantly in view; as Christ exhorts every one individually to be perfect, even as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48).

With this conception of the church is closely connected Paul’s profound and most fruitful idea of the family. He calls the relation of Christ to his church a great mystery (Eph. 5:32), and represents it as the archetype of the marriage relation, whereby one man and one woman become one flesh. He therefore bases the family on new and holy ground, and makes it a miniature of the church, or the household of God. Accordingly, husbands are to love their wives even as Christ loved the church, his bride, and gave himself up for her; wives are to obey their husbands as the church is subject to Christ, the head; parents are to love their children as Christ and the church love the individual Christians; children are to love their parents as individual Christians are to love Christ and the church. The full and general realization of this domestic ideal would be heaven on earth. But how few families come up to this standard.(295)

Ephesians and the Writings of John.

Paul emphasizes the person of Christ in Colossians, the person and agency of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians. For the Holy Spirit carries on the work of Christ in the church. Christians are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise unto the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). The spirit of wisdom and revelation imparts the knowledge of Christ (1:17; 3:16). Christians should be filled with the Spirit (5:18), take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and pray in the Spirit at all seasons (6:17, 18).

The pneumatology of Ephesians resembles that of John, as the christology of Colossians resembles the christology of John. It is the Spirit who takes out of the "fulness" of Christ, and shows it to the believer, who glorifies the Son and guides into the truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13–15, etc.). Great prominence is given to the Spirit also in Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, and the Acts of the Apostles.

John does not speak of the church and its outward organization (except in the Apocalypse), but he brings Christ in as close and vital a contact with the individual disciples as Paul with the whole body. Both teach the unity of the church as a fact, and as an aim to be realized more and more by the effort of Christians, and both put the centre of unity in the Holy Spirit.

Encyclical Intent

Ephesians was intended not only for the church at Ephesus, the metropolis of Asia Minor, but for all the leading churches of that district. Hence the omission of the words "in Ephesus" (Eph. 1:1) in some of the oldest and best MSS.(296) Hence, also, the absence of personal and local intelligence. The encyclical destination may be inferred also from the reference in Col. 4:16 to the Epistle to the church of Laodicea, which the Colossians were to procure and to read, and which is probably identical with our canonical Epistle to the Ephesians."(297)

Character and Value of the Epistle.

Ephesians is the most churchly book of the New Testament. But it presupposes Colossians, the most Christly of Paul’s Epistles. Its churchliness is rooted and grounded in Christliness, and has no sense whatever if separated from this root. A church without Christ would be, at best, a praying corpse (and there are such churches). Paul was at once the highest of high churchmen, the most evangelical of evangelicals, and the broadest of the broad, because most comprehensive in his grasp and furthest removed from all pedantry and bigotry of sect or party.(298)

Ephesians is, in some respects, the most profound and difficult (though not the most important) of his Epistles. It certainly is the most spiritual and devout, composed in an exalted and transcendent state of mind, where theology rises into worship, and meditation into oration. It is the Epistle of the Heavenlies (ta; ejpouravnia), a solemn liturgy, an ode to Christ and his spotless bride, the Song of Songs in the New Testament. The aged apostle soared high above all earthly things to the invisible and eternal realities in heaven. From his gloomy confinement he ascended for a season to the mount of transfiguration. The prisoner of Christ, chained to a heathen soldier, was transformed into a conqueror, clad in the panoply of God, and singing a paean of victory.

The style has a corresponding rhythmical flow and overflow, and sounds at times like the swell of a majestic organ.(299) It is very involved and presents unusual combinations, but this is owing to the pressure and grandeur of ideas; besides, we must remember that it was written in Greek, which admits of long periods and parentheses. In Eph. 1:3–14 we have one sentence with no less than seven relative clauses, which rise like a thick cloud of incense higher and higher to the very throne of God.(300)

Luther reckoned Ephesians among "the best and noblest books of the New Testament." Witsius characterized it as a divine Epistle glowing with the flame of Christian love and the splendor of holy light. Braune says: "The exalted significance of the Epistle for all time lies in its fundamental idea: the church of Jesus Christ a creation of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, decreed from eternity, destined for eternity; it is the ethical cosmos; the family of God gathered in the world and in history and still further to be gathered, the object of his nurture and care in time and in eternity."

These are Continental judgments. English divines are equally strong in praise of this Epistle. Coleridge calls it "the sublimest composition of man;" Alford: "the greatest and most heavenly work of one whose very imagination is peopled with things in the heavens;" Farrar: "the Epistle of the Ascension, the most sublime, the most profound, and the most advanced and final utterance of that mystery of the gospel which it was given to St. Paul for the first time to proclaim in all its fulness to the Gentile world."

Theme: The church of Christ, the family of God, the fulness of Christ.

Leading Thoughts: God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love (Eph. 1:4). In him we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (1:7). He purposed to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth (1:10). God gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all (1:23). God, being rich in mercy, quickened us together with Christ and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus (2:4–6). By grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, that no man should glory (2:8, 9). Christ is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition (2:14). Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone (2:19, 20). Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach Unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ (3:8). That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God (3:17–19). Give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (4:3). There is one body, and one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all (4:6). He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints (4:11, 12). Speak the truth in love (4:15). Put on the new man, which after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth (4:24). Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for as, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell (5:1, 2). Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord (5:22). Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it (5:25). This mystery is great; but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church (532). Children, obey your parents in the Lord (6:1). Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil (6:11).

§ 96. Colossians and Ephesians Compared and Vindicated.

Comparison.

The Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were written about the same time and transmitted through the same messenger, Tychicus. They are as closely related to each other as the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans. They handle the same theme, Christ and his church; as Galatians and Romans discuss the same doctrines of salvation by free grace and justification by faith.

But Colossians, like Galatians, arose from a specific emergency, and is brief, terse, polemical; while Ephesians, like Romans, is expanded, calm, irenical. Colossians is directed against the incipient Gnostic (paganizing) heresy, as Galatians is directed against the Judaizing heresy. The former is anti-Essenic and anti-ascetic, the latter is anti-Pharisaic and anti-legalistic; the one deals with a speculative expansion and fantastic evaporation, the latter, with a bigoted contraction, of Christianity; yet both these tendencies, like all extremes, have points of contact and admit of strange amalgamations; and in fact the Colossian and Galatian errorists united in their ceremonial observance of circumcision and the Sabbath. Ephesians, like Romans, is an independent exposition of the positive truth, of which the heresy opposed in the other Epistles is a perversion or caricature.

Again, Colossians and Ephesians differ from each other in the modification and application of their common theme: Colossians is christological and represents Christ as the true pleroma or plenitude of the Godhead, the totality of divine attributes and powers; Ephesians is ecclesiological and exhibits the ideal church as the body of Christ, as the reflected pleroma of Christ, "the fulness of Him who filleth all in all." Christology naturally precedes ecclesiology in the order of the system, as Christ precedes the church; and Colossians preceded Ephesians most probably, also in the order of composition, as the outline precedes the full picture; but they were not far apart, and arose from the same train of meditation.(301)

This relationship of resemblance and contrast can be satisfactorily explained only on the assumption of the same authorship, the same time of composition, and the same group of churches endangered by the same heretical modes of thought. With Paul as the author of both everything is clear; without that assumption everything is dark and uncertain. "Non est cuiusvis hominis," says Erasmus, "Paulinum pectus effingere; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus."(302)

Authorship.

The genuineness of the two cognate Epistles has recently been doubted and denied, but the negative critics are by no means agreed; some surrender Ephesians but retain Colossians, others reverse the case; while Baur, always bolder and more consistent than his predecessors, rejects both.(303)

They must stand or fall together. But they will stand. They represent, indeed, an advanced state of christological and ecclesiological knowledge in the apostolic age, but they have their roots in the older Epistles of Paul, and are brimful of his spirit. They were called forth by a new phase of error, and brought out new statements of truth with new words and phrases adapted to the case. They contain nothing that Paul could not have written consistently with his older Epistles, and there is no known pupil of Paul who could have forged such highly intellectual and spiritual letters in his name and equalled, if not out-Pauled Paul.(304) The external testimonies are unanimous in favor of the Pauline authorship, and go as far back as Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius, and the heretical Marcion (about 140), who included both Epistles in his mutilated canon.(305)

The difficulties which have been urged against their Pauline origin, especially of Ephesians, are as follows:

The striking resemblance of the two Epistles, and the apparent repetitiousness and dependence of Ephesians on Colossians, which seem to be unworthy of such an original thinker as Paul.(306) But this resemblance, which is more striking in the practical than in the doctrinal part, is not the resemblance between an author and an imitator, but of two compositions of the same author, written about the same time on two closely connected topics; and it is accompanied by an equally marked variety in thought and language.
The absence of personal and local references in Ephesians. This is, as already remarked, sufficiently explained by the encyclical character of that Epistle.
A number of peculiar words not found elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles.(307) But they are admirably adapted to the new ideas, and must be expected from a mind so rich as Paul’s. Every Epistle contains some hapaxlegomena. The only thing which is somewhat startling is that an apostle should speak of "holy apostles and prophets" (Eph. 3:5), but the term "holy" (a{gioi) is applied in the New Testament to all Christians, as being consecrated to God (aJgiasmevnoi, John 17:17), and not in the later ecclesiastical sense of a spiritual nobility. It implies no contradiction to Eph. 3:8, where the author calls himself "the least of all saints" (comp. 1 Cor. 15:9, "I am the least of the apostles").
The only argument of any weight is the alleged post-Pauline rise of the Gnostic heresy, which is undoubtedly opposed in Colossians (not in Ephesians, at least not directly). But why should this heresy not have arisen in the apostolic age as well as the Judaizing heresy which sprung up before a.d. 50, and followed Paul everywhere? The tares spring up almost simultaneously with the wheat. Error is the shadow of truth. Simon Magus, the contemporary of Peter, and the Gnostic Cerinthus, the contemporary, of John, are certainly historic persons. Paul speaks (1 Cor. 8:1) of a "gnosis which puffeth up," and warned the Ephesian elders, as early as 58, of the rising of disturbing errorists from their own midst; and the Apocalypse, which the Tübingen critics assign to the year 68, certainly opposes the antinomian type of Gnosticism, the error of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 15, 20), which the early Fathers derived from one of the first seven deacons of Jerusalem. All the elements of Gnosticism—Ebionism, Platonism, Philoism, syncretism, asceticism, antinomianism—were extant before Christ, and it needed only a spark of Christian truth to set the inflammable material on fire. The universal sentiment of the Fathers, as far as we can trace it up to Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp found the origin of Gnosticism in the apostolic age, and called Simon Magus its father or grandfather.

Against their testimony, the isolated passage of Hegesippus, so often quoted by the negative critics,(308) has not the weight of a feather. This credulous, inaccurate, and narrow-minded Jewish Christian writer said, according to Eusebius, that the church enjoyed profound peace, and was "a pure and uncorrupted virgin," governed by brothers and relations of Jesus, until the age of Trajan, when, after the death of the apostles, "the knowledge falsely so called" (yeudwvnumo" gnw'si", comp. 1 Tim. 6:20), openly raised its head.(309) But he speaks of the church in Palestine, not in Asia Minor; and he was certainly mistaken in this dream of an age of absolute purity and peace. The Tübingen school itself maintains the very opposite view. Every Epistle, as well as the Acts, bears testimony to the profound agitations, parties, and evils of the church, including Jerusalem, where the first great theological controversy was fought out by the apostles themselves. But Hegesippus corrects himself, and makes a distinction between the secret working and the open and shameless manifestation of heresy. The former began, he intimates, in the apostolic age; the latter showed itself afterward.(310) Gnosticism, like modern Rationalism,(311) had a growth of a hundred years before it came to full maturity. A post-apostolic writer would have dealt very differently with the fully developed systems of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion. And yet the two short Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians strike at the roots of this error, and teach the positive truth with an originality, vigor, and depth that makes them more valuable, even as a refutation, than the five books of Irenaeus against Gnosticism, and the ten books of the Philosophumena of Hippolytus; and this patent fact is the best proof of their apostolic origin.

§ 97. The Epistle to the Philippians.

The Church at Philippi.

Philippi was a city of Macedonia, founded by and called after Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, in a fertile region, with contiguous gold and silver mines, on the banks of a small river and the highway between Asia and Europe, ten miles from the seacoast. It acquired immortal fame by the battle between Brutus and Mark Antony (b.c. 42), in which the Roman republic died and the empire was born. After that event it had the rank of a Roman military colony, with the high-sounding title, "Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis."(312) Hence its mixed population, the Greeks, of course, prevailing, next the Roman colonists and magistrates, and last a limited number of Jews, who had a place of prayer on the riverside. It was visited by Paul, in company with Silas, Timothy, and Luke, on his second missionary tour, in the year 52, and became the seat of the first Christian congregation on the classical soil of Greece. Lydia, the purple dealer of Thyatira and a half proselyte to Judaism, a native slave-girl with a divining spirit, which was used by her masters as a means of gain among the superstitious heathen, and a Roman jailer, were the first converts, and fitly represent the three nationalities (Jew, Greek, and Roman) and the classes of society which were especially benefited by Christianity. "In the history of the gospel at Philippi, as in the history of the church at large, is reflected the great maxim of Christianity, the central truth of the apostle’s teaching, that here is ’neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.’ "(313) Here, also, are the first recorded instances of whole households (of Lydia and the jailer) being baptized and gathered into the church, of which the family is the chief nursery. The congregation was fully organized, with bishops (presbyters) and deacons at the head (Phil. 1:1).

Here the apostle was severely persecuted and marvellously delivered. Here he had his most loyal and devoted converts, who were his "joy and crown." For them he felt the strongest personal attachment; from them alone he would receive contributions for his support. In the autumn of the year 57, after five years’ absence, he paid a second visit to Philippi, having in the meantime kept up constant intercourse with the congregation through living messengers; and on his last journey to Jerusalem, in the spring of the following year, he stopped at Philippi to keep the paschal feast with his beloved brethren. They had liberally contributed out of their poverty to the relief of the churches in Judaea. When they heard of his arrival at Rome, they again sent him timely assistance through Epaphroditus, who also offered his personal services to the prisoner of the Lord, at the sacrifice of his health and almost his life. It was through this faithful fellow-worker that Paul sent his letter of thanks to the Philippians, hoping, after his release, to visit them in person once more.

The Epistle.

The Epistle reflects, in familiar ease, his relations to this beloved flock, which rested on the love of Christ. It is not systematic, not polemic, nor apologetic, but personal and autobiographic, resembling in this respect the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, and to some extent, also, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. It is the free outflow of tender love and gratitude, and full of joy and cheerfulness in the face of life and death. It is like his midnight hymn of praise in the dungeon of Philippi. "Rejoice in the Lord alway; again I will say, Rejoice" (Phil. 4:4).(314) This is the key-note of the letter.(315) It proves that a healthy Christian faith, far from depressing and saddening the heart, makes truly happy and contented even in prison. It is an important contribution to our knowledge of the character of the apostle. In acknowledging the gift of the Philippians, he gracefully and delicately mingles manly independence and gratitude. He had no doctrinal error, nor practical vice to rebuke, as in Galatians and Corinthians.

The only discordant tone is the warning against "the dogs of the concision" (katatomhv, 3:2), as he sarcastically calls the champions of circumcision (peritomhv), who everywhere sowed tares in his wheat fields, and at that very time tried to check his usefulness in Rome by substituting the righteousness of the law for the righteousness of faith. But he guards the readers with equal earnestness against the opposite extreme of antinomian license (3:2–21). In opposition to the spirit of personal and social rivalry and contention which manifested itself among the Philippians, Paul reminds them of the self-denying example of Christ, who was the highest of all, and yet became the lowliest of all by divesting himself of his divine majesty and humbling himself, even to the death on the cross, and who, in reward for his obedience, was exalted above every name (2:1–11).

This is the most important doctrinal passage of the letter, and contains (together with 2 Cor. 8:9) the fruitful germ of the speculations on the nature and extent of the kenosis, which figures so prominently in the history of christology.(316) It is a striking example of the apparently accidental occasion of some of the deepest utterances of the apostle. "With passages full of elegant negligence (Phil. 1:29), like Plato’s dialogues and Cicero’s letters, it has passages of wonderful eloquence, and proceeds from outward relations and special circumstances to wide-reaching thoughts and grand conceptions."(317)

The objections against the genuineness raised by a few hyper-critical are not worthy of a serious refutation.(318)184

The Later History.

The subsequent history of the church at Philippi is rather disappointing, like that of the other apostolic churches in the East. It appears again in the letters of Ignatius, who passed through the place on his way to his martyrdom in Rome, and was kindly entertained and escorted by the brethren, and in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, who expressed his joy that "the sturdy root of their faith, famous from the earliest days, still survives and bears fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ," and alludes to the labors of "the blessed and glorious Paul" among them. Tertullian appeals to the Philippian church as still maintaining the apostle’s doctrine and reading his Epistle publicly. The name of its bishop is mentioned here and there in the records of councils, but that is all. During the middle ages the city was turned into a wretched village, and the bishopric into a mere shadow. At present there is not even a village on the site, but only a caravansary, a mile or more from the ruins, which consist of a theatre, broken marble columns, two lofty gateways, and a portion of the city wall.(319) "Of the church which stood foremost among all the apostolic communities in faith and love, it may literally be said that not one stone stands upon another. Its whole career is a signal monument of the inscrutable counsels of God. Born into the world with the brightest promise, the church of Philippi has lived without a history and perished without a memorial."(320)

But in Paul’s Epistle that noble little band of Christians still lives and blesses the church in distant countries.

Theme: Theological: The self-humiliation (kevnwsi") of Christ for our salvation (Phil. 2:5–11). Practical: Christian cheerfulness.

Leading Thoughts: He who began a good work in you will perfect it (1:6). If only Christ is preached, I rejoice (1:13). To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain (1:21). Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who emptied himself, etc. (2:5 sqq.). God worketh in you both to will and to work (2:13). Rejoice in the Lord alway; again I will say, Rejoice (3:1; 4:1). I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ (3:8). I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (3:14). Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (4:8). The peace of God passeth all understanding (4:7).

§ 98. The Epistle to Philemon.

Of the many private letters of introduction and recommendation which Paul must have written during his long life, only one is left to us, very brief but very weighty. It is addressed to Philemon, a zealous Christian at Colossae, a convert of Paul and apparently a layman, who lent his house for the religious meetings of the brethren.(321) The name recalls the touching mythological legend of the faithful old couple, Philemon and Baucis, who, in the same province of Phrygia, entertained gods unawares and were rewarded for their simple hospitality and conjugal love. The letter was written and transmitted at the same time as that to the Colossians. It may be regarded as a personal postscript to it.

It was a letter of recommendation of Onesimus (i.e., Profitable),(322) a slave of Philemon, who had run away from his master on account of some offence (probably theft, a very common sin of slaves),(323) fell in with Paul at Rome, of whom he may have heard in the weekly meetings at Colossae, or through Epaphras, his fellow-townsman, was converted by him to the Christian faith, and now desired to return, as a penitent, in company with Tychicus, the bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. 4:9).

Paul and Slavery.

The Epistle is purely personal, yet most significant. Paul omits his official title, and substitutes the touching designation, "a prisoner of Christ Jesus," thereby going directly to the heart of his friend. The letter introduces us into a Christian household, consisting of father (Philemon), mother (Apphia), son (Archippus, who was at the same time a "fellow-soldier," a Christian minister), and a slave (Onesimus). It shows the effect of Christianity upon society at a crucial point, where heathenism was utterly helpless. It touches on the institution of slavery, which lay like an incubus upon the whole heathen world and was interwoven with the whole structure of domestic and public life.

The effect of Christianity upon this gigantic social evil is that of a peaceful and gradual care from within, by teaching the common origin and equality of men, their common redemption and Christian brotherhood, by, emancipating them from slavery unto spiritual freedom, equality, and brotherhood in Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one moral person (Gal. 3:28). This principle and the corresponding practice wrought first an amelioration, and ultimately the abolition of slavery. The process was very slow and retarded by the counteracting influence of the love of gain and power, and all the sinful passions of men; but it was sure and is now almost complete throughout the Christian world; while paganism and Mohammedanism regard slavery as a normal state of society, and hence do not even make an attempt to remove it. It was the only wise way for the apostles to follow in dealing with the subject. A proclamation of emancipation from them would have been a mere brutum fulmen, or, if effectual, would have resulted in a bloody revolution of society in which Christianity itself would have been buried.

Paul accordingly sent back Onesimus to his rightful master, yet under a new character, no more a contemptible thief and runaway, but a regenerate man and a "beloved brother," with the touching request that Philemon might receive him as kindly as he would the apostle himself, yea as his own heart (Philem. 16, 17). Such advice took the sting out of slavery; the form remained, the thing itself was gone. What a contrast! In the eyes of the heathen philosophers (even Aristotle) Onesimus, like every other slave, was but a live chattel; in the eyes of Paul a redeemed child of God and heir of eternal life, which is far better than freedom.(324)

The New Testament is silent about the effect of the letter. We cannot doubt that Philemon forgave Onesimus and treated him with Christian kindness. In all probability he went beyond the letter of the request and complied with its spirit, which hints at emancipation. Tradition relates that Onesimus received his freedom and became bishop of Beraea in Macedonia; sometimes he is confounded with his namesake, a bishop of Ephesus in the second century, or made a missionary in Spain and a martyr in Rome, or at Puteoli. (325)

Paul and Philemon.

The Epistle is at the same time an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of Paul. It reveals him to us as a perfect Christian gentleman. It is a model of courtesy, delicacy, and tenderness of feeling. Shut up in a prison, the aged apostle had a heart full of love and sympathy for a poor runaway slave, made him a freeman in Christ Jesus, and recommended him as if he were his own self.

Paul and Pliny.

Grotius and other commentators(326) quote the famous letter of Pliny the Consul to his friend Sabinianus in behalf of a runaway slave. It is very creditable to Pliny, who was born in the year when Paul arrived as a prisoner in Rome, and shows that the natural feelings of kindness and generosity could not be extinguished even by that inhuman institution. Pliny was a Roman gentleman of high culture and noble instincts, although he ignorantly despised Christianity and persecuted its innocent professors while Proconsul in Asia. The letters present striking points of resemblance: in both, a fugitive slave, guilty, but reformed, and desirous to return to duty; in both, a polite, delicate, and earnest plea for pardon and restoration, dictated by sentiments of disinterested kindness. But they differ as Christian charity differs from natural philanthropy, as a Christian gentleman differs from a heathen gentleman. The one could appeal only to the amiable temper and pride of his friend, the other to the love of Christ and the sense of duty and gratitude; the one was concerned for the temporal comfort of his client, the other even more for his eternal welfare; the one could at best remand him to his former condition as a slave, the other raised him to the high dignity of a Christian brother, sitting with his master at the same communion table of a common Lord and Saviour. "For polished speech the Roman may bear the palm, but for nobleness of tone and warmth of heart he falls far short of the imprisoned apostle."

The Epistle was poorly understood in the ancient church when slavery ruled supreme in the Roman empire. A strong prejudice prevailed against it in the fourth century, as if it were wholly unworthy of an apostle. Jerome, Chrysostom, and other commentators, who themselves had no clear idea of its ultimate social bearing, apologized to their readers that Paul, instead of teaching metaphysical dogmas and enforcing ecclesiastical discipline, should take so much interest in a poor runaway slave.(327) But since the Reformation full justice has been done to it. Erasmus says: "Cicero never wrote with greater elegance." Luther and Calvin speak of it in high terms, especially Luther, who fully appreciated its noble, Christ-like sentiments. Bengel: "mire ajstei'o"." Ewald: "Nowhere can the sensibility and warmth of a tender friendship blend more beautifully with the loftier feeling of a commanding spirit than in this letter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and significant." Meyer: "A precious relic of a great character, and, viewed merely as a specimen of Attic elegance and urbanity, it takes rank among the epistolary masterpieces of antiquity." Baur rejects it with trifling arguments as post-apostolic, but confesses that it "makes an agreeable impression by its attractive form," and breathes "the noblest Christian spirit."(328) Holtzmann calls it "a model of tact, refinement, and amiability." Reuss: "a model of tact and humanity, and an expression of a fine appreciation of Christian duty, and genial, amiable humor." Renan, with his keen eye on the literary and aesthetic merits or defects, praises it as "a veritable little f-d’oeuvre, of the art of letter-writing." And Lightfoot, while estimating still higher its moral significance on the question of slavery, remarks of its literary excellency: "As an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, of large sympathy, of warm personal affection, the Epistle to Philemon stands unrivalled. And its pre-eminence is the more remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the spirit of the writer."

§ 99. The Pastoral Epistles.

Comp. § 33, pp. 327–329.

Contents.

The three Pastoral Epistles, two to Timothy and one to Titus, form a group by themselves, and represent the last stage of the apostle’s life and labors, with his parting counsels to his beloved disciples and fellow-workers. They show us the transition of the apostolic church from primitive simplicity to a more definite system of doctrine and form of government. This is just what we might expect from the probable time of their composition after the first Roman captivity of Paul, and before the composition of the Apocalypse.

They are addressed not to congregations, but to individuals, and hence more personal and confidential in their character. This fact helps us to understand many peculiarities. Timothy, the son of a heathen father and a Jewish mother, and Titus, a converted Greek) were among the dearest of Paul’s pupils.(329) They were, at the same time, his delegates and commissioners on special occasions, and appear under this official character in the Epistles, which, for this reason, bear the name "Pastoral."

The Epistles contain Paul’s pastoral theology and his theory of church government. They give directions for founding, training, and governing churches, and for the proper treatment of individual members, old and young, widows and virgins, backsliders and heretics. They are rich in practical wisdom and full of encouragement, as every pastor knows.

The Second Epistle to Timothy is more personal in its contents than the other two, and has the additional importance of concluding the autobiography of Paul. It is his last will and testament to all future ministers and soldiers of Christ.

The Pauline Authorship.

There never was a serious doubt as to the Pauline authorship of these Epistles till the nineteenth century, except among a few Gnostics in the second century. They were always reckoned among the Homologumena, as distinct from the seven Antilegomena, or disputed books of the New Testament. As far as external evidence is concerned, they stand on as firm a foundation as any other Epistle. They are quoted as canonical by Eusebius, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus. Reminiscences from them, in some cases with verbal agreement, are found in several of the Apostolic Fathers. They are included in the ancient MSS. and Versions, and in the list of the Muratorian canon. Marcion (about 140), it is true, excluded them from his canon of ten Pauline Epistles, but he excluded also the Gospels (except a mutilated Luke), the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse.(330)

But there are certain internal difficulties which have induced a number of modern critics to assign them all, or at least First Timothy, to a post-Pauline or pseudo-Pauline writer, who either changed and adapted Pauline originals to a later state of the church, or fabricated the whole in the interest of Catholic orthodoxy. In either case, the writer is credited with the best intentions and must not be judged according to the modern standard of literary honesty and literary property. Doctrinally, the Pastoral Epistles are made the connecting link between genuine Paulinism and the Johannean Logos—philosophy; ecclesiastically, the link between primitive Presbyterianism and Catholic Episcopacy; in both respects, a necessary element in the formation process of the orthodox Catholic church of the second century.

The objections against the Pauline authorship deserve serious consideration, and are as follows: (1) The impossibility of locating these Epistles in the recorded life of Paul; (2) the Gnostic heresy opposed; (3) the ecclesiastical organization implied; (4) the peculiarities of style and temper. If they are not genuine, Second Timothy must be the oldest, as it is least liable to these objections, and First Timothy and Titus are supposed to represent a later development.(331)

The Time of Composition.

The chronology of the Pastoral Epistles is uncertain, and has been made an objection to their genuineness. It is closely connected with the hypothesis of a second Roman captivity, which we have discussed in another place.

The Second Epistle to Timothy, whether genuine or not, hails from a Roman prison, and appears to be the last of Paul’s Epistles; for he was then hourly expecting the close of his fight of faith, and the crown of righteousness from his Lord and Master (2 Tim. 4:7, 8). Those who deny the second imprisonment, and yet accept Second Timothy as Pauline, make it the last of the first imprisonment.

As to First Timothy and Titus, it is evident from their contents that they were written while Paul was free, and after he had made some journeys, which are not recorded in the Acts. Here lies the difficulty. Two ways are open:

The two Epistles were written in 56 and 57. Paul may, during his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus, a.d. 54–57 (see Acts 19:8–10; 20:31), easily have made a second journey to Macedonia, leaving Ephesus in charge of Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3); and also crossed over to the island of Crete, where he left Titus behind to take care of the churches (Tit. 1:5). Considering the incompleteness of the record of Acts, and the probable allusions in 2 Cor. 2:1; 12:13, 14, 21; 13:1, to a second visit to Corinth, not mentioned in the Acts, these two journeys are within the reach of possibility.(332) But such an early date leaves the other difficulties unexplained.
The tradition of the second Roman captivity, which can be raised at least to a high degree of probability, removes the difficulty by giving us room for new journeys and labors of Paid between his release in the spring of 63 and the Neronian persecution in July, 64 (according to Tacitus), or three or four years later (according to Eusebius and Jerome), as well as for the development of the Gnostic heresy and the ecclesiastical organization of the church which is implied in these Epistles. Hence, most writers who hold to the genuineness place First Timothy and Titus between the first and second Roman captivities.(333)

Paul certainly intended to make a journey from Rome to Spain (Rom. 15:24), and also one to the East (Philem. 22; Phil. 1:25, 26; 2:24), and he had ample time to carry out his intention even before the Neronian persecution, if we insist upon confining this to the date of Tacitus.(334)

Those who press the chronological difficulty should not forget that a forger could have very easily fitted the Epistles into the narrative of the Acts, and was not likely to invent a series of journeys, circumstances, and incidents, such as the bringing of the cloak, the books, and the parchments which Paul, in the hurry of travel, had left at Troas (2 Tim. 4:13).

The Gnostic Heresy.

The Pastoral Epistles, like Colossians, oppose the Gnostic heresy (gnw'si" yeudwvnumo", 1 Tim. 6:20) which arose in Asia Minor during his first Roman captivity, and appears more fully developed in Cerinthus, the contemporary of John. This was acknowledged by the early Fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, who used these very Epistles as Pauline testimonies against the Gnosticism of their day.

The question arises, which of the many types of this many-sided error is opposed? Evidently the Judaizing type, which resembled that at Colossae, but was more advanced and malignant, and hence is more sternly denounced. The heretics were of "the circumcision" (Tit. 1:10); they are called "teachers of the law" (nomodidavskaloi, 1 Tim. 1:7, the very reverse of antinomians), "given to Jewish fables" ( jIoudai>koi mu'qoi, Tit. 1:14), and "disputes connected with the law" (mavcai nomikaiv, Tit. 3:9), and fond of foolish and ignorant questionings (2 Tim. 2:23). They were, moreover, extravagant ascetics, like the Essenes, forbidding to marry and abstaining from meat (1 Tim. 4:3), 8; Tit. 1:14, 15). They denied the resurrection and overthrew the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:18).

Baur turned these heretics into anti-Jewish and antinomian Gnostics of the school of Marcion (about 140), and then, by consequence, put the Epistles down to the middle of the second century. He finds in the "genealogies" ( 1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9) the emanations, of the Gnostic aeons, and in the "antitheses" (1 Tim. 6:20), or anti-evangelical assertions of the heretical teachers, an allusion to Marcion’s "antitheses" (antilogies), by which he set forth the supposed contradictions between the Old and New Testaments.(335) But this is a radical misinterpretation, and the more recent opponents of the genuineness are forced to admit the Judaizing character of those errorists; they identify them with Cerinthus, the Ophites, and Saturninus, who preceded Marcion by several decades.(336)

As to the origin of the Gnostic heresy, which the Tübingen school would put down to the age of Hadrian, we have already seen that, like its counterpart, the Ebionite heresy, it dates from the apostolic age, according to the united testimony of the later Pauline Epistles, the Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, the Apocalypse, and the patristic tradition.(337)

Ecclesiastical Organization.

The Pastoral Epistles seem to presuppose a more fully developed ecclesiastical organization than the other Pauline Epistles, and to belong to an age of transition from apostolic simplicity, or Christo-democracy—if we may use such a term—to the episcopal hierarchy of the second century. The church, in proportion as it lost, after the destruction of Jerusalem, its faith in the speedy advent of Christ, began to settle down in this world, and to make preparations for a permanent home by a fixed creed and a compact organization, which gave it unity and strength against heathen persecution and heretical corruption. This organization, at once simple and elastic, was episcopacy, with its subordinate offices of the presbyterate and deaconate, and charitable institutions for widows and orphans. Such an organization we have, it is said, in the Pastoral Epistles, which were written in the name of Paul, to give the weight of his authority to the incipient hierarchy.(338)

But, on closer inspection, there is a very marked difference between the ecclesiastical constitution of the Pastoral Epistles and that of the second century. There is not a word said about the divine origin of episcopacy; not a trace of a congregational episcopate, such as we find in the Ignatian epistles, still less of a diocesan episcopate of the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Bishops and presbyters are still identical as they are in the Acts 20:17, 28, and in the undoubtedly genuine Epistle to the Philippians 1:1. Even Timothy and Titus appear simply as delegates of the apostle for a specific mission.(339) The qualifications and functions required of the bishop are aptness to teach and a blameless character; and their authority is made to depend upon their moral character rather than their office. They are supposed to be married, and to set a good example in governing their own household. The ordination which Timothy received (1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22) need not differ from the ordination of deacons and elders mentioned in Acts 6:6; 8:17; comp. 14:23; 19:6). "Few features," says Dr. Plumptre, himself an Episcopalian, "are more striking in these Epistles than the absence of any high hierarchical system." The Apocalypse, which these very critics so confidently assign to the year 68, shows a nearer approach to episcopal unity in the "angels" of the seven churches. But even from the "angels," of the Apocalypse there was a long way to the Ignatian and pseudo-Clementine bishops, who are set up as living oracles and hierarchical idols.

The Style.

The language of the Pastoral Epistles shows an unusual number of un-Pauline words and phrases, especially rare compounds, some of them nowhere found in the whole New Testament, or even in Greek literature.(340)

But, in the first place, the number of words peculiar to each one of the three epistles is much greater than the number of peculiar words common to all three; consequently, if the argument proves anything, it leads to the conclusion of three different authors, which the assailants will not admit, in view of the general unity of the Epistles. In the next place, every one of Paul’s Epistles has a number of peculiar words, even the little Epistle of Philemon.(341) The most characteristic words were required by the nature of the new topics handled and the heresy combated, such as "knowledge falsely so called" (yeudwvnumo" gnw'si", 1 Tim. 6:20) "healthful doctrine" (uJgiaivnousa didaskaliva, Tim. 1:10); "Jewish myths" (Tit. 1:14); "genealogies" (Tit. 3:9); "profane babblings" (2 Tim. 2:16). Paul’s mind was uncommonly fertile and capable of adapting itself to varying, conditions, and had to create in some measure the Christian idiom. The Tübingen critics profess the highest admiration for his genius, and yet would contract his vocabulary to a very small compass. Finally, the peculiarities of style are counterbalanced by stronger resemblances and unmistakable evidences of Pauline authorship. "There are flashes of the deepest feeling, outbursts of the most intense expression. There is rhythmic movement and excellent majesty in the doxologies, and the ideal of a Christian pastor drawn not only with an unfaltering hand, but with a beauty, fulness, and simplicity which a thousand years of subsequent experience have enabled no one to equal, much less to surpass."(342)

On the other hand, we may well ask the opponents to give a good reason why a forger should have chosen so many new words when he might have so easily confined himself to the vocabulary of the other Epistles of Paul; why he should have added "mercy" to the salutation instead of the usual form; why he should have called Paul "the chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), and affected a tone of humility rather than a tone of high apostolic authority?

Other Objections.

The Epistles have been charged with want of logical connection, with abruptness, monotony, and repetitiousness, unworthy of such an original thinker and writer as Paul. But this feature is only the easy, familiar, we may say careless, style which forms the charm as well as the defect of personal correspondence. Moreover, every great author varies more or less at different periods of life, and under different conditions and moods.

It would be a more serious objection if the theology of these Epistles could be made to appear in conflict with that of his acknowledged works.(343) But this is not the case. It is said that greater stress is laid on sound doctrine and good works. But in Galatians, Paul condemns most solemnly every departure from the genuine gospel (Gal. 1:8, 9), and in all his Epistles he enjoins holiness as the indispensable evidence of faith; while salvation is just as clearly traced to divine grace alone, in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5), as in Romans.

In conclusion, while we cannot be blind to certain difficulties, and may not be able, from want of knowledge of the precise situation of the writer, satisfactorily to explain them, we must insist that the prevailing evidence is in favor of the genuineness of these Epistles. They agree with Paul’s doctrinal system; they are illuminated with flashes of his genius; they bear the marks of his intense personality; they contain rare gems of inspired truth, and most wholesome admonition and advice, which makes them to-day far more valuable than any number of works on pastoral theology and church government. There are not a few passages in them which, for doctrine or practice, are equal to the best he ever wrote, and are deeply lodged in the experience and affection of Christendom.(344)

And what could be a more fitting, as well as more sublime and beautiful, finale of such a hero of faith than the last words of his last Epistle, written in the very face of martyrdom: "I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing."

Note.

Schleiermacher led the way, in 1807, with his attack on 1 Timothy, urging very keenly historical, philological, and other objections, but assuming 2 Timothy and Titus to be the genuine originals from which the first was compiled. DeWette followed in his Introduction. Baur left both behind and rejected all, in his epoch-making treatise, Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe, 1835. He was followed by Schwegler (1846), Hilgenfeld (1875), Mangold, Schenkel, Hausrath, Pfleiderer (both in his Paulinismus and in his Commentary in the Protestanten-Bibel, 1874), Holtzmann; also by Ewald, Renan (L’Église chrétienne, pp. 85 sqq.), and Sam. Davidson (Introd., revised ed., II. 21 sqq.). The most elaborate book against the genuineness is Holtzmann’s Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exeg. behandelt, Leipzig, 1880 (504 pp.); comp. his Einleitung (1886).

Reuss (Les épitres Pauliniennes, 1878, II. 243 sq., 307 sq., and Gesch. des N. T, 1887, p. 257 sqq.) rejects 1 Timothy and Titus, but admits 2 Timothy, assigning it to the first Roman captivity. He thinks that 2 Timothy would never have been doubted except for its suspicious companionship. Some of the opponents, as Pfleiderer and Renan, feel forced to admit some scraps of genuine Pauline Epistles or notes, and thus they break the force of the opposition. The three Epistles must stand or fall together, either as wholly Pauline, or as wholly pseudo-Pauline.

The genuineness has been ably vindicated by Guericke, Thiersch, Huther, Wiesinger, Otto, Wieseler, Van Oosterzee, Lange, Herzog, von Hofmann, Beck, Alford, Gloag, Fairbairn (Past. Ep., 1874), Farrar (St. Paul, II. 607 sqq.), Wace (in the Speaker’s Com. New Test., III., 1881, 749 sqq.), Plumptre (in Schaff’s Com. on the New Test., III., 1882, pp. 550 sqq.), Kölling (Der erste Br. a. Tim. 1882), Salmon (1885), and Weiss (1886).

§ 100. The Epistle To The Hebrews.

I. Commentaries on Hebrews by Chrysostom (d. 407, eJrmhneiva, in 34 Homilies publ. after his death by an Antioch. presbyter, Constantinus); Theodoret (d. 457); Oecumenius (10th cent.); Theophylact (11th cent.); Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274); Erasmus (d. 1536, Annotationes in N. T., with his Greek Test., 1516 and often, and Paraphrasis in N. T., 1522 and often); Card. Cajetanus (Epistolae Pauli, etc., 1531); Calvin (d. 1564, Com. in omnes P. Ep. atque etiam in Ep. ad Hebraeos, 1539 and often, also Halle, 1831); Beza (d. 1605, transl. and notes, 1557 and often; had much influence on King Jame’s Version); Hyperius (at Marburg, d. 1564); Dav. Pareus (d. 1615, Com. in Ep. ad Hebr.); Corn. A Lapide (Jesuit, d. 1637, Com. in omnes Pauli Epp., 1627 and often); Guil. Estius (R. C. Prof. at Douai, 1614, etc.); Jac. Cappellus (Sedan, 1624); Lud. Cappellus (Geneva, 1632); Grotius (d. 1645, Arminian, a great classical and general scholar); Joh. Gerhard (d. 1637); John Owen (the great Puritan divine, d. 1683, Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1668–80, in 4 vols. fol., Lat. transl., Amsterd., 1700 [new Engl. ed. in 7 vols., in his Works, Lond., 1826, 21 vols.; Edinb. ed. of Works* by W. H. Goold, 1850–55; 24 vols., Philad. reprint, 1869], "a work of gigantic strength as well as gigantic size," as Chalmers called it, and containing a whole system of Puritan theology); Jac. Pierce (Non-conformist, d. 1726); Sykes (d. 1756); Carpzov (d. 1803, Exercitat.,* etc., 1750); J. D. Michaelis (2d ed., 1780–86, 2 vols.); Rosenmüller (1793); Storr (d. 1805; Tüb., 1789); Böhme (Lips., 1825); Mos. Stuart (Andover, 1827, 2 vols., 4th ed., abridged and revised by Robbins, 1860); Kühnöl (1831); Friedrich Bleek (Prof. in Bonn., d. 1859; the large Com. in 3 vols., Berlin, 1836–40, an exegetical masterpiece, most learned, critical, candid, judicious, and reverential, though free; his Lectures on Hebrews were ed., after his death, by Windrath, 1868); Tholuck (Hamburg, 1836, dedicated to Bunsen, 3d ed., 1850, transl. by James Hamilton, Edinb., 1852); Stier (1842); DeWette (1847, 2d ed.); Ebrard (1850, in Olshausen’s Com., vol. v.; Engl. transl., Edinb., 1853); Turner (new ed. N. Y., 1855); Sampson (ed. by Dabney, N. Y., 1856); Lünemann (in Meyer’s Com., 1857, 4th ed., 1878); Delitzsch (1857, transl. by Th. L. Kingsbury, Edinb., 1868, 2 vols.); John Brown (Edinb., 1862, 2 vols.); Reuss (in French, 1862); Lindsay (Edinb., 1867, 2 vols.); Moll (in Lange’s Com., translated and enlarged by Kendrick, 1868); Ripley (1868); Kurtz (1869); Ewald (1870); Hofmann (1873); Biesenthal (1878); Bloomfield; Alford; Wordsworth; W. Kay (in the Speaker’s Com. N. T, vol. iv., 1882); Moulton (in Ellicott’s Com. for English Readers); A. B. Davidson (of the New College, Edinburgh. 1882); Angus (1883); Sam. T. Lowrie (1884); Weiss (1888).

The doctrinal system of the Ep. has been most fully expounded by Riehm (d. 1888 in Halle): Der Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefs, Basel und Ludwigsburg, 1858–59, 2 vols.; new ed., 1867, in 1 vol. (899 pages). Comp. the expositions of Neander, Messner, Baur, Reuss, and Weiss. On the use of the O. T., see Tholuck: Das A. T. im N., Hamb., 3d ed., 1849; on the Christology of the Epistle, Beyerschlag: Christologie des N. T. (1866), 176 sqq.; on the Melchisedek priesthood, Auberlen, in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1857, pp. 453 sqq. Pfleiderer, in his Paulinismus (pp. 324–366), treats of Hebrews, together with Colossians and the Epistle of Barnabas, as representing Paulinism under the influence of Alexandrinism.
On the introductory questions, comp. Norton in the: "Christian Examiner" (Boston), 1827–29; Olshausen: De auctore Ep. ad Hebraeos (in Opusc. theol., 1834); Wieseler: Untersuchung über den Hebraeerbrief, Kiel, 1861; J. H. Thayer: Authorship and Canonicity of the to the Hebrews, in the "Bibliotheca Sacra," Andover, 1867; Zahn, in Herzog’s "Encykl.," vol. v. (1879), pp. 656–671; and articles in "Bible Dictionaries," and in "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., vol. xi., 602 sqq.

The anonymous Epistle "to the Hebrews," like the Book of Job, belongs to the order of Melchizedek, combining priestly unction and royal dignity, but being "without father, without mother, without pedigree, having neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:1–3). Obscure in its origin, it is clear and deep in its knowledge of Christ. Hailing from the second generation of Christians (2:3), it is full of pentecostal inspiration. Traceable to no apostle, it teaches, exhorts, and warns with apostolic authority and power. Though not of Paul’s pen, it has, somehow, the impress of his genius and influence, and is altogether worthy to occupy a place in the canon, after his Epistles, or between them and the Catholic Epistles. Pauline in spirit, it is catholic or encyclical in its aim.(345)

Contents.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is not an ordinary letter. It has, indeed, the direct personal appeals, closing messages, and salutations of a letter; but it is more, it is a homily, or rather a theological discourse, aiming to strengthen the readers in their Christian faith, and to protect them against the danger of apostasy from Christianity. It is a profound argument for the superiority of Christ over the angels, over Moses, and over the Levitical priesthood, and for the finality of the second covenant. It unfolds far more fully than any other book the great idea of the eternal priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, offered once and forever for the redemption of the world, as distinct from the national and transient character of the Mosaic priesthood and the ever-repeated sacrifices of the Tabernacle and the Temple. The author draws his arguments from the Old Testament itself, showing that, by its whole character and express declarations, it is a preparatory dispensation for the gospel salvation, a significant type and prophecy of Christianity, and hence destined to pass away like a transient shadow of the abiding substance. He implies that the Mosaic oeconomy was still existing, with its priests and daily sacrifices, but in process of decay, and looks forward to the fearful judgment which a few years, afterward destroyed the Temple forever.(346) He interweaves pathetic admonitions and precious consolations with doctrinal expositions, and every exhortation leads him to a new exposition. Paul puts the hortatory part usually at the end.

The author undoubtedly belonged to the Pauline school, which emphasized the great distinction between the Old and the New Covenant; while yet fully acknowledging the divine origin and paedagogic use of the former. But he brings out the superiority of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice to the Mosaic priesthood and sacrifice; while Paul dwells mainly on the distinction between the law and the gospel. He lays chief stress on faith, but he presents it in its general aspect as trust in God, in its prospective reference to the future and invisible, and in its connection with hope and perseverance under suffering; while Paul describes faith, in its specific evangelical character, as a hearty trust in Christ and his atoning merits, and in its justifying effect, in opposition to legalistic reliance on works. Faith is defined, or at least described, as "assurance (uJpovstasi") of things hoped for, a conviction (e[legco") of things not seen" (11:1). This applies to the Old Testament as well as the New, and hence appropriately opens the catalogue of patriarchs and prophets, who encourage Christian believers in their conflict; but they are to look still more to Jesus as "the author and perfecter of our faith" (12:2), who is, after all, the unchanging object of our faith, "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever" (13:8).

The Epistle is eminently Christological. It resembles in this respect Colossians and Philippians, and forms a stepping-stone to the Christology of John. From the sublime description of the exaltation and majesty of Christ in Heb. 1:1–4 (comp. Col. 1:15–20), there is only one step to the prologue of the fourth Gospel. The exposition of the high priesthood of Christ reminds one of the sacerdotal prayer (John 17).

The use of proof-texts from the Old Testament seems at times contrary to the obvious historical import of the passage, but is always ingenious, and was, no doubt, convincing to Jewish readers. The writer does not distinguish between typical and direct prophecies. He recognizes the typical, or rather antitypical, character of the Tabernacle and its services, as reflecting the archetype seen by Moses in the mount, but all the Messianic prophecies are explained as direct (Heb. 1:5–14; 2:11–13; 10:5–10). He betrays throughout a high order of Greek culture, profound knowledge of the Greek Scriptures, and the symbolical import of the Mosaic worship.(347) He was also familiar with the Alexandrian theosophy of Philo,(348) but he never introduces foreign ideas into the Scriptures, as Philo did by his allegorical interpretation. His exhortations and warnings go to the quick of the moral sensibility; and yet his tone is also cheering and encouraging. He had the charisma of exhortation and consolation in the highest degree.(349) Altogether, he was a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and gifted with a tongue of fire.

The Style.

Hebrews is written in purer Greek than any book of the New Testament, except those portions of Luke where he is independent of prior documents. The Epistle begins, like the third Gospel, with a rich and elegant period of classic construction. The description of the heroes of faith in the eleventh chapter is one of the most eloquent and sublime in the entire history of religious literature. He often reasons a minori ad majus (eij ... povsw/ ma'llon). He uses a number of rare and choice terms which occur nowhere else in the New Testament.(350)

As compared with the undoubted Epistles of Paul, the style of Hebrews is less fiery and forcible, but smoother, more correct, rhetorical, rhythmical, and free from anacolutha and solecisms. There is not that rush and vehemence which bursts through ordinary rules, but a calm and regular flow of speech. The sentences are skilfully constructed and well rounded. Paul is bent exclusively on the thought; the author of Hebrews evidently paid great attention to the form. Though not strictly classical, his style is as pure as the Hellenistic dialect and the close affinity with the Septuagint permit.

All these considerations exclude the idea of a translation from a supposed Hebrew original.

The Readers.

The Epistle is addressed to the Hebrew Christians, that is, according to the usual distinction between Hebrews and Hellenists (Acts 6:1; 9:27), to the converted Jews in Palestine, chiefly to those in Jerusalem. To them it is especially adapted. They lived in sight of the Temple, and were exposed to the persecution of the hierarchy and the temptation of apostasy. This has been the prevailing view from the time of Chrysostom to Bleek.(351) The objection that the Epistle quotes the Old Testament uniformly after the Septuagint is not conclusive, since the Septuagint was undoubtedly used in Palestine alongside with the Hebrew original.

Other views more or less improbable need only be mentioned: (1) All the Christian Jews as distinct from the Gentiles;(352) (2) the Jews of Jerusalem alone;(353) (3) the Jews of Alexandria;(354) (4) the Jews of Antioch;(355) (5) the Jews of Rome;(356) (6) some community of the dispersion in the East (but not Jerusalem).(357)

Occasion and Aim.

The Epistle was prompted by the desire to strengthen and comfort the readers in their trials and persecutions (Heb. 10:32–39; Heb. 11 and 12), but especially to warn them against the danger of apostasy to Judaism (2:2, 3; 3:6, 14; 4:1, 14; 6:1–8; 10:23, 26–31). And this could be done best by showing the infinite superiority of Christianity, and the awful guilt of neglecting so great a salvation.

Strange that but thirty years after the resurrection and the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, there should have been such a danger of apostasy in the very mother church of Christendom. And yet not strange, if we realize the condition of things, between 60 and 70. The Christians in Jerusalem were the most conservative of all believers, and adhered as closely as possible to the traditions of their fathers. They were contented with the elementary doctrines, and needed to be pressed on "unto perfection" (5:12; 6:1–4). The Epistle of James represents their doctrinal stand-point. The strange advice which he gave to his brother Paul, on his last visit, reflects their timidity and narrowness. Although numbered by "myriads," they made no attempt in that critical moment to rescue the great apostle from the hands of the fanatical Jews; they were "all zealous for the law," and afraid of the radicalism of Paul on hearing that he was teaching the Jews of the Dispersion "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs" ( Acts 21:20, 21).

They hoped against hope for the conversion of their people. When that hope vanished more and more, when some of their teachers had suffered martyrdom (Heb. 13:7), when James, their revered leader, was stoned by the Jews (62), and when the patriotic movement for the deliverance of Palestine from the hated yoke of the heathen Romans rose higher and higher, till it burst out at last in open rebellion (66), it was very natural that those timid Christians should feel strongly tempted to apostatize from the poor, persecuted sect to the national religion, which they at heart still believed to be the best part of Christianity. The solemn services of the Temple, the ritual pomp and splendor of the Aaronic priesthood, the daily sacrifices, and all the sacred associations of the past had still a great charm for them, and allured them to their embrace. The danger was very strong, and the warning of the Epistle fearfully solemn.

Similar dangers have occurred again and again in critical periods of history.

Time and Place of Composition.

The Epistle hails and sends greetings from some place in Italy, at a time when Timothy, Paul’s disciple, was set at liberty, and the writer was on the point of paying, with Timothy, a visit to his readers (13:23, 24). The passage, "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them" (13:3), does not necessarily imply that he himself was in prison, indeed 13:23 seems to imply his freedom. These notices naturally suggest the close of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, in the spring of the year 63, or soon after; for Timothy and Luke were with him there, and the writer himself evidently belonged to the circle of his friends and fellow-workers.

There is further internal evidence that the letter was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), before the outbreak of the Jewish war (66), before the Neronian persecution (in July, 64), and before Paul’s martyrdom. None of these important events are even alluded to;(358) on the contrary, as already remarked, the Temple was still standing, with its daily sacrifices regularly going on, and the doom of the theocracy was still in the future, though "nigh unto a curse," "becoming old and ready to vanish away;" it was "shaken" and about to be removed; the day of the fearful judgment was drawing nigh.(359)

The place of composition was either Rome or some place in Southern Italy, if we assume that the writer had already started on his journey to the East.(360) Others assign it to Alexandria, or Antioch, or Ephesus.(361)

Authorship.

This is still a matter of dispute, and will probably never be decided with absolute certainty. The obscurity of its origin is the reason why the Epistle to the Hebrews was ranked among the seven Antilegomena of the ante-Nicene church. The controversy ceased after the adoption of the traditional canon in 397, but revived again at the time of the Reformation. The different theories may be arranged under three heads: (1) sole authorship of Paul; (2) sole authorship of one of his pupils; (3) joint authorship of Paul and one of his pupils. Among the pupils again the views are subdivided between Luke, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Silvanus, and Apollos.(362)

The Pauline Authorship was the prevailing opinion of the church from the fourth century to the eighteenth, with the exception of the Reformers, and was once almost an article of faith, but has now very few defenders among scholars.(363) It rests on the following arguments:

(a) The unanimous tradition of the Eastern church, to which the letter was in all probability directed; yet with the important qualification which weakens the force of this testimony, that there was a widely prevailing perception of a difference of style, and consequent supposition of a Hebrew original, of which there is no historic basis whatever. Clement of Alexandria ascribed the Greek composition to Luke.(364) Origen observes the greater purity of the Greek style,(365) and mentions Luke and Clement, besides Paul, as possible authors, but confesses his own ignorance.(366)

(b) The mention of Timothy and the reference to a release from captivity (Heb. 13:23) point to Paul. Not necessarily, but only to the circle of Paul. The alleged reference to Paul’s own captivity in 10:34 rests on a false reading (desmoi'" mou, E. V., "in my bonds," instead of the one now generally adopted, toi'" desmivoi", "those that were in bonds"). Nor does the request 13:18, 19, imply that the writer was a prisoner at the time of composition; for 13:23 rather points to his freedom, as he expected, shortly to see his readers in company with Timothy.

(c) The agreement of the Epistle with Paul’s system of doctrine, the tone of apostolic authority, and the depth and unction which raises the Epistle to a par with his genuine writings. But all that can be said in praise of this wonderful Epistle at best proves only its inspiration and canonicity, which must be extended beyond the circle of the apostles so as to embrace the writings of Luke, Mark, James, and Jude.

The Non-Pauline Authorship is supported by the following arguments:

(a) The Western tradition, both Roman and North African, down to the time of Augustin, is decidedly against the Pauline authorship. This has all the more weight from the fact that the earliest traces of the Epistle to the Hebrews are found in the Roman church, where it was known before the close of the first century. Clement of Rome makes very extensive use of it, but nowhere under the name of Paul. The Muratorian Canon enumerates only thirteen Epistles of Paul and omits Hebrews. So does Gaius, a Roman presbyter, at the beginning of the third century. Tertullian ascribed the Epistle to Barnabas. According to the testimony of Eusebius, the Roman church did not regard the Epistle as Pauline at his day (he died 340). Philastrius of Brescia (d. about 387) mentions that some denied the Pauline authorship, because the passage 6:4–6 favored the heresy and excessive disciplinary rigor of the Novatians, but he himself believed it to be Paul’s, and so did Ambrose of Milan. Jerome (d. 419) can be quoted on both sides. He wavered in his own view, but expressly says: "The Latin custom (Latina consuetudo) does not receive it among the canonical Scriptures;" and in another place: "All the Greeks receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, and some Latins (et nonnulli Latinorum)." Augustin, a profound divine, but neither linguist nor critic, likewise wavered, but leaned strongly toward the Pauline origin. The prevailing opinion in the West ascribed only thirteen Epistles to Paul. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the third Synod of Carthage (397), under the commanding influence of Augustin, marked a transition of opinion in favor of fourteen.(367) This opinion prevailed until Erasmus and the Reformers revived the doubts of the early Fathers. The Council of Trent sanctioned it.

(b) The absence of the customary name and salutation. This has been explained from modesty, as Paul was sent to the Gentiles rather than the Jews (Pantaenus), or from prudence and the desire to secure a better hearing from Jews who were strongly prejudiced against Paul (Clement of Alexandria). Very unsatisfactory and set aside by the authoritative tone of the Epistle.

(c) In 2:3 the writer expressly distinguishes himself from the apostles, and reckons himself with the second generation of Christians, to whom the word of the Lord was "confirmed by them that heard" it at the first from the Lord. Paul, on the contrary, puts himself on a par with the other apostles, and derives his doctrine directly from Christ, without any human intervention (Gal. 1:1, 12, 15, 16). This passage alone is conclusive, and decided Luther, Calvin, and Beza against the Pauline authorship.(368)

(d) The difference, not in the substance, but in the form and method of teaching and arguing.(369)

(e) The difference of style (which has already been discussed). This argument does not rest on the number of peculiar words for such are found in every book of the New Testament, but in the superior purity, correctness, and rhetorical finish of style.

(f) The difference in the quotations from the Old Testament. The author of Hebrews follows uniformly the Septuagint, even with its departures from the Hebrew; while Paul is more independent, and often corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew. Bleek has also discovered the important fact that the former used the text of Codex Alexandrinus, the latter the text of Codex Vaticanus.(370) It is incredible that Paul, writing to the church of Jerusalem, should not have made use of his Hebrew and rabbinical learning in quoting the Scriptures.

3 Conjectures concerning the probable author. Four Pauline disciples and co-workers have been proposed, either as sole or as joint authors with Paul, three with some support in tradition—Barnabas, Luke, and Clement—one without any Apollos. Silvanus also has a few advocates.(371)

(a) Barnabas.(372) He has in his favor the tradition of the African church (at least Tertullian), his Levitical training, his intimacy with Paul, his close relation to the church in Jerusalem, and his almost apostolic authority. As the uiJo;" paraklhvsew" (Acts 4:36), he may have written the lovgo" paraklhvsew" (Heb. 13:22). But in this case he cannot be the author of the Epistle which goes by his name, and which, although belonging to the Pauline and strongly anti-Judaizing tendency, is yet far inferior to Hebrews in spirit and wisdom. Moreover, Barnabas was a primitive disciple, and cannot be included in the second generation (2:3).

(b) Luke.(373) He answers the description of 2:3, writes pure Greek, and has many affinities in style.(374) But against him is the fact that the author of Hebrews was, no doubt, a native Jew, while Luke was a Gentile (Col. 4:11, 14). This objection, however, ceases in a measure if Luke wrote in the name and under the instruction of Paul.

(c) Clemens Romanus.(375) He makes thorough use of Hebrews and interweaves passages from the Epistle with his own ideas, but evidently as an imitator, far inferior in originality and force.

(d) Apollos.(376) A happy guess of the genius of Luther, suggested by the description given of Apollos in the Acts 18:24–28, and by Paul (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Tit. 3:13). Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria, mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, eloquent in speech, powerfully confuting the Jews, a friend of Paul, and independently working with him in the same cause at Ephesus, Corinth, Crete. So far everything seems to fit. But this hypothesis has not a shadow of support in tradition, which could hardly have omitted Apollos in silence among the three or four probable authors. Clement names him once,(377) but not as the author of the Epistle which he so freely uses. Nor is there any trace of his ever having been in Rome, and having stood in so close a relationship to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine.

The learned discussion of modern divines has led to no certain and unanimous conclusion, but is, nevertheless, very valuable, and sheds light in different directions. The following points may be regarded as made certain, or at least in the highest degree probable: the author of Hebrews was a Jew by birth; a Hellenist, not a Palestinian; thoroughly at home in the Greek Scriptures (less so, if at all, in the Hebrew original); familiar with the Alexandrian Jewish theology (less so, if at all, with the rabbinical learning of Palestine); a pupil of the apostles (not himself an apostle); an independent disciple and coworker of Paul; a friend of Timothy; in close relation with the Hebrew Christians of Palestine, and, when he wrote, on the point of visiting them; an inspired man of apostolic insight, power, and authority, and hence worthy of a position in the canon as "the great unknown."

Beyond these marks we cannot go with safety. The writer purposely withholds his name. The arguments for Barnabas, Luke, and Apollos, as well as the objections against them, are equally strong, and we have no data to decide between them, not to mention other less known workers of the apostolic age. We must still confess with Origen that God only knows the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Notes.

I.—The Position of Hebrews in the New Testament. In the old Greek MSS. (a, B, C, D) the Epistle to the Hebrews stands before the Pastoral Epistles, as being an acknowledged letter of Paul. This order has, perhaps, a chronological value, and is followed in the critical editions Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), although Westcott and Hort regard the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline, and the Ep. to the Hebrews as un-Pauline. See their Gr. Test., vol. II., 321.

But in the Latin and English Bibles, Hebrews stands more appropriately at the close of the Pauline Epistles, and immediately precedes the Catholic Epistles.

Luther, who had some doctrinal objections to Hebrews and James, took the liberty of putting them after the Epistles of Peter and John, and making them the last Epistles except Jude. He misunderstood Heb. 6:4–6; 10:26, 27; 12:17, as excluding the possibility of a second repentance and pardon after baptism, and called these passages, "hard knots" that ran counter to all the Gospels and Epistles of Paul; but, apart from this, he declared Hebrews to be, "an Epistle of exquisite beauty, discussing from Scripture, with masterly skill and thoroughness, the priesthood of Christ, and interpreting on this point the Old Testament with great richness and acuteness."

The English Revisers retained, without any documentary evidence, the traditional title, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." This gives sanction to a particular theory, and is properly objected to by the American Revisers. The Pauline authorship is, to say the least, an open question, and should have been left open by the Revisers. The ancient authorities entitle the letter simply, Pro;s JEbraivou", and even this was probably added by the hand of an early transcriber. Still less is the subscription, "Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy" to be relied on as original, and was probably a mere inference from the contents (Heb. 13:23, 24).

II.—The Hapaxtegomena of the Epistle. ajgenealovghto", without pedigree (said of Melchizedek), Heb. 7:3. ajmhvtwr, motherless, 7:3. ajpavtwr, fatherless, 7:3. ajpauvgasma, effulgence (said of Christ in relation to God), 1:2. aijsqhthvrion, sense, 5:14. ajkroqivnion, spoils, 7:4. eujperivstato" (from eu and periivsthmi, to place round), a difficult word of uncertain interpretation, easily besetting, closely clinging to (E. R. on the margin: admired by many), 12:1. kritikov", quick to discern, 4:12. hJ mevllousa oijkoumevnh, the future world, 2:5. mesiteuvein, to interpose one’s self, to mediate, 6:17., metriopaqei'n, to have compassion on, to bear gently with, 5:2 (said of Christ). oJrkwmosiva, oath, 7:20, 21, 28. parapikraivnein, to provoke, 3:16. parapikrasmov", provocation, 3:8, 15. polumerw'", by divers portions, 1:1. polutrovpw", in divers manners, 1:1. provdromo", forerunner, 6:20 (of Christ). sunepimarturei'n, to bear witness with, 2:4. trachlivzein. to open, 4:13 (tetrachlismevna, laid open). uJpostasi", substance (or person), 1:3 (of God); confidence, 3:14; assurance, 11:1. This word, however, occurs also in 2 Cor. 11:17, in the sense of confidence. carakthvr, express image (Christ, the very image of the essence of God), Heb. 1:3.

On the other hand, the Ep. to the Hebrews has a number of rare words in common with Paul which are not elsewhere found in the New Testament or the Septuagint, as aijdwv" (12:13; 1 Tim. 2:9), a[naqewrevw (Heb. 13:7; Acts 17:23), ajnupovtakto" (Heb.2:8; 1 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:6, 10), ajpeivqeia (Heb. 4:6, 11; Rom. 11:30, 32; Eph. 2:2; Col. 3:5), ajpovlousi" (Heb. 11:25; 1 Tim. 6:17), ajfilavrguro" (Heb. 13:5; 1 Tim. 3:3), e[ndiko" (Heb. 2:1; Rom. 3:8), ejnerghv" (Heb. 4:12; 1 Cor. 16:9; Philem. 6), ejfavpax (Heb. 7:27; 10:10; Rom. 9:10; 1 Cor. 15:6), kosmikov" (Heb. 9:11; Tit. 2:12), mimhthv" (Heb. 6:12; 1 Cor. 4:16, etc.), nekrovw (Heb. 11:12; Rom. 4:19; Col. 3:5), ojrevgomai (Heb. 11:16; 1 Tim. 3:1; 6:10), parakohv (Heb. 2:2; Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 10:6), plhroforiva (Heb. 6:11; 10:22; Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5), filoxeniva (Heb. 13:2; Rom. 12:13).

On the linguistic peculiarities of Hebrews, see Bleek, I. 315–338 Lünemann, Com., pp. 12 and 24 sqq. (4th ed., 1878); Davidson, Introd., I. 209 sqq. (revised ed., 1882); and the Speaker’s Com. N. T., IV. 7–16.

§ 101. The Apocalypse.

On the Lit. and life of John, see §§ 40 and 41 (this vol.); on the authorship of the Apoc. and the time of composition, § 37 (this vol.); § 41 (this vol.); and § 84 (this vol.)

Modern Critical, works of German and French scholars on the Apocalypse: Lücke (Voltständige Einleitung, etc., 2d ed., 1852; 1,074 pages of introductory matter, critical and historical; compare with it the review of Bleek in the "Studien and Kritiken" for 1854 and 1855); DeWette Com., 1848, with a remarkable preface, 3d ed. by Möller, 1862); Bleek (Posthumous Lectures, ed. by Hossbach, 1862); Ewald (Die Johann. Schriften, vol. II, 1862; besides his older Latin Com., 1828); Düsterdieck (in Meyer’s Com., 3d ed., 1877); Renan (L’Antechrist, 1873); Reuss (1878). A. Sabatier, in Lichtenberger’s "Encyclopédie," I. 396–407. E. Vischer: Die Offenb. Joh. eine Jüd. Apok. in christl. Bearbeitung, Leipz., 1886. F. Spitta: Die Offenb. Joh. untersucht, Halle, 1889.
For Doctrinal and Practical exposition, the Commentaries of Hengstenberg (1849, spoiled by false prophecies and arbitrary fancies) Auberlen (on Daniel and Revelation, 2d ed., 1854); Gaussen (Daniel le prophète, 1850); Ebrard (in Olshausen’s Com., 1853); Luthardt (1861); J. C. K. Hofmann (1844 and 1862); J. L. Füller (follows Hofmann, 1874); Lange (1871, Am. ed. enlarged by Craven, 1874); Gebhardt (Lehrbegriff der Apok., 1873); Kliefoth (1874). Comp. also Rougemont: La Révélation de St. Jean expliquant l’histoire (1866). Godet: Essay upon the Apoc., in his Studies on the N. T., translated from the French by W. H. Lyttleton, London, 1876, 294–398.
English Com.: E. H. Elliott (d. 1875, Horae Apoc., 5th ed., 1862, 4 vols.); Wordsworth (4th ed., 1866); Alford (3d ed., 1866); C. J. Vaughan (3d ed., 1870, practical); William Lee (Archdeacon in Dublin, in the "Speaker’s" Com. N. T., vol. iv., 1881, pp. 405–844) E. Huntingford (Lond., 1882); Milligan (1883 and 1886 the best). Trench: The Epistles to the Seven Churches (2d ed., 1861), and Plumptre: Expos. of the Epp. to the Seven Ch. (Lond. and N. Y., 1877).
American Com. by Moses Stuart (1845, 2 vols., new ed., 1864, with an Excursus on the Number of the Beast, II. 452); Cowles (1871).
Of Older Commentaries, the most important and valuable are the following:

Greek: Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia (5th cent.; the first continuous Com. on the Apoc., publ. 1596, also in the works of Chrysostom; see Lücke, p. 983); Arethas Of Caes. in Cappad. (not of the 6th cent., as stated by Lücke, p. 990, and others, but of the 10th, according to Otto, and Harnack, in Altchristl. Liter., 1882, pp, 36 sqq.; his suvvnoyi" scolikhv, ed. by J. A. Cramner, in his Catenae Graec. Patr. in N. T., Oxon., 1840, vol. VIII.; and in the works of Oecumenius); 0ecumenius (10th cent., see Lücke, p. 991).
Rom. Cath.: Lud. Ab Alcasar (a Jesuit, 1614); Cornelius A Lapide (1662); Bossuet (1690, and in Oeuvres, vol. III., 1819); Bisping (1876).
Protestant: Jos. Mede (Clavis Apocalyptica, Cambr., 1632; Engl. transl. by More, 1643; a new transl. by R. B. Cooper, Lond., 1833); Hugo Grotius (first, 1644); Vitringa (1705, 1719, 1721); Bengel (1740); Bishop Thomas Newton (in Dissertations on the Prophecies, 8 vols., 1758).

This list is a small selection. The literature on the Apocalypse, especially in English, is immense, but mostly impository rather than expository, and hence worthless or even mischievous, because confounding and misleading. Darling’s list of English works on the Apocalypse contains nearly fifty-four columns (I., 1732–1786).

General Character of the Apocalypse.

The "Revelation" of John, or rather "of Jesus Christ" through John,(378) appropriately closes the New Testament. It is the one and only prophetic book, but based upon the discourses of our Lord on the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, and his second advent (Matt. 24). It has one face turned back to the prophecies of old, the other gazing into the future. It combines the beginning and the end in Him who is "the Alpha and the Omega." It reminds one of the mysterious sphinx keeping ceaseless watch, with staring eyes, at the base of the Great Pyramid. "As many words as many mysteries," says Jerome; "Nobody knows what is in it," adds Luther.(379) No book has been more misunderstood and abused; none calls for greater modesty and reserve in interpretation.(380)

The opening and closing chapters are as clear and dazzling as sunlight, and furnish spiritual nourishment and encouragement to the plainest Christian; but the intervening visions are, to most readers, as dark as midnight, yet with many stars and the full moon illuminating the darkness. The Epistles to the Seven Churches, the description of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the anthems and doxologies(381) which are interspersed through the mysterious visions, and glister like brilliant jewels on a canopy of richest black, are among the most beautiful, sublime, edifying, and inspiring portions of the Bible, and they ought to guard us against a hasty judgment of those chapters which we may be unable to understand. The Old Testament prophets were not clearly understood until the fulfilment cast its light upon them, and yet they served a most useful purpose as books of warning, comfort, and hope for the coming Messiah. The Revelation will be fully revealed when the new heavens and the new earth appear—not before.(382)

"A prophet" (says the sceptical DeWette in his Commentary on Revelation, which was his last work) "is essentially an inspired man, an interpreter of God, who announces the Word of God to men in accordance with, and within the limits of, the divine truth already revealed through Moses in the Old Testament, through Christ in the New (the ajpokavluyi" musthrivou, Rom. 16:25. Prophecy rests on faith in a continuous providence of God ruling over the whole world, and with peculiar efficacy over Israel and the congregation of Christ, according to the moral laws revealed through Moses and Christ especially the laws of retribution. According to the secular view, all changes in human affairs proceed partly from man’s power and prudence, partly from accident and the hidden stubbornness of fate; but according to the prophetic view, everything happens through the agency of God and in harmony with his counsels of eternal and unchangeable justice, and man is the maker of his own fortunes by obeying or resisting the will of God."(383)

The prophecy of the Bible meets the natural desire to know the future, and this desire is most intense in great critical periods that are pregnant with fears and hopes. But it widely differs from the oracles of the heathen, and the conjectures of farseeing men. It rests on revelation, not on human sagacity and guesses; it gives certainty, not mere probability; it is general, not specific; it does not gratify curiosity, but is intended to edify and improve. The prophets are not merely revealers of secrets, but also preachers of repentance, revivalists, comforters, rebuking sin, strengthening faith, encouraging hope.

The Apocalypse is in the New Testament what the Book of Daniel is in the Old, and differs from it as the New Testament differs from the Old. Both are prophetic utterances of the will of God concerning the future of his kingdom on earth. Both are books of the church militant, and engage heaven and earth, divine, human, and satanic powers, in a conflict for life and death. They march on as "a terrible army with banners." They reverberate with thunderings and reflect the lightning flashes from the throne. But while Daniel looks to the first advent of the Messiah as the heir of the preceding world-monarchies, John looks to the second advent of Christ and the new heavens and the new earth. He gathers up all the former prophecies and sends them enriched to the future. He assures us of the final fulfilment of the prophecy of the serpent-bruiser, which was given to our first parents immediately after the fall as a guiding star of hope in the dark night of sin. He blends the glories of creation and redemption in the finale of the new Jerusalem from heaven.

The Apocalypse, as to its style of composition, is written in prose, like Daniel, but belongs to prophetic poetry, which is peculiar to the Bible and takes there the place of the epic poetry of the Greeks; God himself being the hero, as it were, who rules over the destinies of man. It is an inspired work of art, and requires for its understanding a poetic imagination, which is seldom found among commentators and critics; but the imagination must be under the restraint of sober judgment, or it is apt to run into fantastic comments which themselves need a commentary. The apocalyptic vision is the last and most complete form of the prophetic poetry of the Bible. The strong resemblance between the Revelation and Daniel, Ezekiel and Zechariah is admitted, and without them it cannot be understood.

But we may compare it also, as to its poetic form and arrangement, with the book of Job. Both present a conflict on earth, controlled by invisible powers in heaven. In Job it is the struggle of an individual servant of God with Satan, the arch-slanderer and persecutor of man, who, with the permission of God, uses temporal losses, bodily sufferings, mental anguish, harassing doubt, domestic affliction, false and unfeeling friends to secure his ruin. In the Apocalypse it is the conflict of Christ and his church with the anti-Christian world. In both the scene begins in heaven; in both the war ends in victory but in Job long life and temporal prosperity of the individual sufferer is the price, in the Apocalypse redeemed humanity in the new heavens and the new earth. Both are arranged in three parts: a prologue, the battle with successive encounters, and an epilogue. In both the invisible power presiding over the action is the divine counsel of wisdom and mercy, in the place of the dark impersonal fate of the Greek drama.(384)

A comparison between the Apocalypse and the pseudo-apocalyptic Jewish and Christian literature—the Fourth Book of Esdras, the Book of Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Sibylline Oracles, etc.—opens a wide field on which we cannot enter without passing far beyond the limits of this work. We may only say that the relation is the same as that between the canonical Gospels and the apocryphal pseudo-Gospels, between real history and the dreamland of fable, between the truth of God and the fiction of man.(385)

The theme of the Apocalypse is: "I come quickly," and the proper attitude of the church toward it is the holy longing of a bride for her spouse, as expressed in the response (Rev. 22:20): "Amen: come, Lord Jesus." It gives us the assurance that Christ is coming in every great event, and rules and overrules all things for the ultimate triumph of his kingdom; that the state of the church on earth is one of continual conflict with hostile powers, but that she is continually gaining victories and will at last completely and finally triumph over all her foes and enjoy unspeakable bliss in communion with her Lord. From the concluding chapters Christian poetry has drawn rich inspiration, and the choicest hymns on the heavenly home of the saints are echoes of John’s description of the new Jerusalem. The whole atmosphere of the book is bracing, and makes one feel fearless and hopeful in the face of the devil and the beasts from the abyss. The Gospels lay the foundation in faith, the Acts and Epistles build upon it a holy life; the Apocalypse is the book of hope to the struggling Christian and the militant church, and insures final victory and rest. This has been its mission; this will be its mission till the Lord come in his own good time.(386)

Analysis of Contents.

The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, the Revelation proper, and an Epilogue. We may compare this arrangement to that of the Fourth Gospel, where John 1:1–18 forms the Prologue, John 21 the Epilogue, and the intervening chapters contain the evangelical history from the gathering of the disciples to the Resurrection.

I. The Prologue and the Epistles to the Seven Churches, Rev. 1–3. The introductory notice; John’s salutation and dedication to the Seven Churches in Asia; the vision of Christ in his glory, and the Seven Churches; the Seven Epistles addressed to them and through them to the whole church, in its various states.(387)

The Revelation proper or the Prophetic Vision of the Church of the Future, 4:1–22:5. It consists chiefly of seven Visions, which are again subdivided according to a symmetrical plan in which the numbers seven, three, four, and twelve are used with symbolic significance. There are intervening scenes of rest and triumph. Sometimes the vision goes back to the beginning and takes a new departure.

The Prelude in heaven, Rev. 4 and 5. (a) The appearance of the throne of God (Rev. 4). (b) The appearance of the Lamb who takes and opens the sealed book (Rev. 5).
The vision of the seven seals, with two episodes between the sixth and seventh seals, 6:1–8:1.
The vision of the seven trumpets of vengeance, 8:2–11:19.
The vision of the woman (the church) and her three enemies, 12:1–13:18. The three enemies are the dragon (12:3–17), the beast from the sea (12:18–13:10), and the beast from the earth, or the false prophet (13:11–18).
The group of visions in Rev 14: (a) the vision of the Lamb on Mount Zion (14:1–5); (b) of the three angels of judgment (14:6–11), followed by an episode (14:12, 13); (c) the vision of the harvest and the vintage of the earth (14:14–20).
The vision of the seven vials of wrath, 15:1–16:21.
The vision of the final triumph, 17:1–22:5: (a) the fall of Babylon (17:1–19:10); (b) the overthrow of Satan (19:11–20:10), with the millennial reign intervening (20:1–6); (c) the universal judgment (20:11–15); (d) the new heavens and the new earth, and the glories of the heavenly Jerusalem (21:1–22:5).

The Epilogue, 22:6–21. The divine attestation, threats, and promises.

Authorship and Canonicity.

The question of authorship has already been discussed in connection with John’s Gospel. The Apocalypse professes to be the work of John, who assumes a commanding position over the churches of Asia. History knows only one such character, the Apostle and Evangelist, and to him it is ascribed by the earliest and most trustworthy witnesses, going back to the lifetime of many friends and pupils of the author. It is one of the best authenticated books of the New Testament.(388)

And yet, owing to its enigmatical obscurity, it is the most disputed of the seven Antilegomena; and this internal difficulty has suggested the hypothesis of the authorship of "Presbyter John," whose very existence is doubtful (being based on a somewhat obscure passage of Papias), and who at all events could not occupy a rival position of superintendency over the churches in Asia during the lifetime of the great John. The Apocalypse was a stumbling-block to the spiritualism of the Alexandrian fathers, and to the realism of the Reformers (at least Luther and Zwingli), and to not a few of eminent modern divines; and yet it has attracted again and again the most intense curiosity and engaged the most patient study of devout scholars; while humble Christians of every age are cheered by its heroic tone and magnificent close in their pilgrimage to the heavenly Jerusalem. Rejected by many as unapostolic and uncanonical, and assigned to a mythical Presbyter John, it is now recognized by the severest school of critics as an undoubted production of the historical Apostle John.(389)

If so, it challenges for this reason alone our profound reverence. For who was better fitted to be the historian of the past and the seer of the future than the bosom friend of our Lord and Saviour? Able scholars, rationalistic as well as orthodox, have by thorough and patient investigation discovered or fully confirmed its poetic beauty and grandeur, the consummate art in its plan and execution. They have indeed not been able to clear up all the mysteries of this book, but have strengthened rather than weakened its claim to the position which it has ever occupied in the canon of the New Testament.

It is true, the sceptical critics who so confidently vindicate the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, derive from this very fact their strongest weapon against the apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel. But the differences of language and spirit which have been urged are by no means irreconcilable, and are overruled by stronger resemblances in the theology and christology and even in the style of the two books. A proper estimate of John’s character enables us to see that he was not only able, but eminently fitted to write both; especially if we take into consideration the intervening distance of twenty or thirty years, the difference of the subject (prospective prophecy in one, and retrospective history in the other), and the difference of the state of mind, now borne along in ecstacy (ejn preuvmati) from vision to vision and recording what the Spirit dictated, now calmly collecting his reminiscences in full, clear self-consciousness (ejn noi>v).(390)

The Time of Composition.

The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or 96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders,(391) but the internal evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9, 68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70).(392) This helps us at the same time more easily to explain the difference between the fiery energy of the Apocalypse and the calm repose of the fourth Gospel, which was composed in extreme old age. The Apocalypse forms the natural transition from the Synoptic Gospels to the fourth Gospel. The condition of the Seven Churches was indeed different from that which existed a few years before when Paul wrote to the Ephesians; but the movement in the apostolic age was very rapid. Six or seven years intervened to account for the changes. The Epistle to the Hebrews implies a similar spiritual decline among its readers in 63 or 64. Great revivals of religion are very apt to be quickly followed by a reaction of worldliness or indifference.

The arguments for the early date are the following:

Jerusalem was still standing, and the seer was directed to measure the Temple and the altar (Rev. 11:1), but the destruction is predicted as approaching. The Gentiles "shall tread (pathvsousin) the holy city under foot forty and two months" (11:2; Comp. Luke 21:24), and the "dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8). The existence of the twelve tribes seems also to be assumed in 7:4–8. The advocates of the traditional date understand these passages in a figurative sense. But the allusion to the crucifixion compels us to think of the historical Jerusalem.
The book was written not long after the death of the fifth Roman emperor, that is, Nero, when the empire had received a deadly wound (comp. 13:3, 12, 14). This is the natural interpretation of 17:10, where it is stated that the seven heads of the scarlet-colored beast, i.e., heathen Rome, "are seven kings; the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come, and when he cometh, he must continue a little while." The first five emperors were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, with whom the gens Julia ingloriously perished. Next came Galba, a mere usurper (seventy-three years old), who ruled but a short time, from June, 68, to January, 69, and was followed by two other usurpers, Otho and Vitellius, till Vespasian, in 70, restored the empire after an interregnum of two years, and left the completion of the conquest of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem to his son Titus.(393) Vespasian may therefore be regarded as the sixth head, the three rebels not being counted; and thus the composition of the Apocalypse would fall in the spring (perhaps Easter) of the year 70. This is confirmed by 13:3, 12, 14, where the deadly wound of the beast is represented as being already healed.(394) But if the usurpers are counted, Galba is the sixth head, and the Revelation was written in 68. In either case Julius Caesar must be excluded from the series of emperors (contrary to Josephus).

Several critics refer the seventh head to Nero, and ascribe to the seer the silly expectation of the return of Nero as Antichrist.(395) In this way they understand the passage 17:11: "The beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth and is of the seven." But John makes a clear distinction between the heads of the beast, of whom Nero was one, and the beast itself, which is the Roman empire. I consider it simply impossible that John could have shared in the heathen delusion of Nero redivivus, which would deprive him of all credit as an inspired prophet. He may have regarded Nero as a fit type and forerunner of Antichrist, but only in the figurative sense in which Babylon of old was the type of heathen Rome.

The early date is best suited for the nature and object of the Apocalypse, and facilitates its historical understanding. Christ pointed in his eschatological discourses to the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding tribulation as the great crisis in the history of the theocracy and the type of the judgment of the world. And there never was a more alarming state of society. The horrors of the French Revolution were confined to one country, but the tribulation of the six years preceding the destruction of Jerusalem extended over the whole Roman empire and embraced wars and rebellions, frequent and unusual conflagrations, earthquakes and famines and plagues, and all sorts of public calamities and miseries untold. It seemed, indeed, that the world, shaken to its very centre, was coming to a close, and every Christian must have felt that the prophecies of Christ were being fulfilled before his eyes.(396)

It was at this unique juncture in the history of mankind that St. John, with the consuming fire in Rome and the infernal spectacle of the Neronian persecution behind him, the terrors of the Jewish war and the Roman interregnum around him, and the catastrophe of Jerusalem and the Jewish theocracy before him, received those wonderful visions of the impending conflicts and final triumphs of the Christian church. His was truly a book of the times and for the times, and administered to the persecuted brethren the one but all-sufficient consolation: Maran atha! Maran atha!

Interpretation.

The different interpretations are reduced by English writers to three systems according as the fulfilment of the prophecy is found in the past, present, or future.(397)

The Preterist system applies the Revelation to the destruction of Jerusalem and heathen Rome. So among Roman Catholics: Alcasar (1614), Bossuet (1690). Among Protestants: Hugo Grotius (1644), Hammond (1653), Clericus (1698), Wetstein (1752), Abauzit, Herder, Eichhorn, Ewald, Lücke, Bleek, DeWette, Reuss, Renan, F. D. Maurice, Samuel Davidson, Moses Stuart Cowles, Desprez, etc. Some(398) refer it chiefly to the overthrow of the Jewish theocracy, others chiefly to the conflict with the Roman empire, still others to both.

But there is a radical difference between those Preterists who acknowledge a real prophecy and permanent truth in the book, and the rationalistic Preterists who regard it as a dream of a visionary which was falsified by events, inasmuch as Jerusalem, instead of becoming the habitation of saints, remained a heap of ruins, while Rome, after the overthrow of heathenism, became the metropolis of Latin Christendom. This view rests on a literal misunderstanding of Jerusalem.

The Continuous (or Historical) system: The Apocalypse is a prophetic compend of church history and covers all Christian centuries to the final consummation. It speaks of things past, present, and future; some of its prophecies are fulfilled, some are now being fulfilled, and others await fulfillment in the yet unknown future. Here belong the great majority of orthodox Protestant commentators and polemics who apply the beast and the mystic Babylon and the mother of harlots drunken with the blood of saints to the church of Rome, either exclusively or chiefly. But they differ widely among themselves in chronology and the application of details. Luther, Bullinger, Collado, Pareus, Brightman, Mede, Robert Fleming, Whiston, Vitringa, Bengel, Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Woodhouse, Elliott, Birks, Gaussen, Auberlen, Hengstenberg, Alford, Wordsworth, Lee.
The Futurist system: The events of the Apocalypse from Rev. 4 to the close lie beyond the second advent of Christ. This scheme usually adopts a literal interpretation of Israel, the Temple, and the numbers (the 31 times, 42 months, 1260 days, 3 1/2 years). So Ribera (a Jesuit, 1592), Lacunza (another Jesuit, who wrote under the name of Ben-Ezra "On the coming of Messiah in glory and majesty," and taught the premillennial advent, the literal restoration of the ancient Zion, and the future apostasy of the clergy of the Roman church to the camp of Antichrist), S. R. Maitland, De Burgh, Todd, Isaac Williams, W. Kelly.

Another important division of historical interpreters is into Post-Millennarians and Pre-Millennarians, according as the millennium predicted in Rev. 20 is regarded as part or future. Augustin committed the radical error of dating the millennium from the time of the Apocalypse or the beginning of the Christian era (although the seer mentioned it near the end of his book), and his view had great influence; hence the wide expectation of the end of the world at the close of the first millennium of the Christian church. Other post-millennarian interpreters date the millennium from the triumph of Christianity over paganism in Rome at the accession of Constantine the Great (311); still others (as Hengstenberg) from the conversion of the Germanic nations or the age of Charlemagne. All these calculations are refuted by events. The millennium of the Apocalypse must he in the future, and is still an article of hope.

The grammatical and historical interpretation of the Apocalypse, as well as of any other book, is the only safe foundation for all legitimate spiritual and practical application. Much has been done in this direction by the learned commentators of recent times. We must explain it from the standpoint of the author and in view of his surroundings. He wrote out of his time and for his time of things which must shortly come to pass (1:1, 3; 22:20), and he wished to be read and understood by his contemporaries (1:3). Otherwise he would have written in vain, and the solemn warning at the close (22:18, 19) would be unintelligible. In some respects they could understand him better than we; for they were fellow-sufferers of the fiery persecutions and witnesses of the fearful judgments described. Undoubtedly he had in view primarily the overthrow of Jerusalem and heathen Rome, the two great foes of Christianity at that time. He could not possibly ignore that great conflict.

But his vision was not confined to these momentous events. It extends even to the remotest future when death and Hades shall be no more, and a new heaven and a new earth shall appear. And although the fulfilment is predicted as being near at hand, he puts a millennium and a short intervening conflict before the final overthrow of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet. We have an analogy in the prophecy of the Old Testament and the eschatalogical discourses of our Lord, which furnish the key for the understanding of the Apocalypse. He describes the destruction of Jerusalem and the general judgment in close proximity, as if they were one continuous event. He sees the end from the beginning. The first catastrophe is painted with colors borrowed from the last, and the last appears as a repetition of the first on a grand and universal scale. It is the manner of prophetic vision to bring distant events into close proximity, as in a panorama. To God a thousand years are as one day. Every true prophecy, moreover, admits of an expanding fulfilment. History ever repeats itself, though never in the same way. There is nothing old under the sun, and, in another sense, there is nothing new under the sun.

In the historical interpretation of details we must guard against arbitrary and fanciful schemes, and mathematical calculations, which minister to idle curiosity, belittle the book, and create distrust in sober minds. The Apocalypse is not a prophetical manual of church history and chronology in the sense of a prediction of particular persons, dates, and events. This would have made it useless to the first readers, and would make it useless now to the great mass of Christians. It gives under symbolic figures and for popular edification an outline of the general principles of divine government and the leading forces in the conflict between Christ’s kingdom and his foes, which is still going on under ever-varying forms. In this way it teaches, like all the prophetic utterances of the Gospels and Epistles, lessons of warning and encouragement to every age. We must distinguish between the spiritual coming of Christ and his personal arrival or parousia. The former is progressive, the latter instantaneous. The coming began with his ascension to heaven (comp. Matt. 26:64: "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven") and goes on in unbroken succession of judgments and blessings (for "the history of the world is a judgment of the world"); hence the alternation of action and repose, of scenes of terror and scenes of joy, of battles and victories. The arrival of the Bridegroom is still in the unknown future, and may be accelerated or delayed by the free action of the church, but it is as certain as the first advent of Christ. The hope of the church will not be disappointed, for it rests on the promise of Him who is called "the Amen, the faithful and true witness" (Rev. 3:14).

Notes.

The Number 666.

The historical understanding of the Apocalypse turns, according to its own statement, chiefly on the solution of the numerical riddle in the thirteenth chapter, which has tried the wits of commentators from the time of Irenaeus in the second century to the present day, and is still under dispute. The history of its solution is a history of the interpretation of the whole book. Hence I present here a summary of the most important views. First some preliminary remarks.

The text, Apoc. 13:18: "Here is wisdom: he that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man (ajriqmo;" ga;r ajnqrwvpou ejstivn), and the number is six hundred and sixty-six " cx"j or eJxakovsioi eJxhvkonta e}x ).

This is the correct reading in the Greek text (supported by Codd. a, A, B (2), P (2), Origen, Primasius, and Versions), and is adopted by the best editors. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. v. 30, quoted also in full by Tischendorf in his edition VIII. critica major) found it "in all the most approved and ancient copies" (ejn pa'si toi'" spoudaivoi" kai; ajrcaivoi" ajntigravfoi"), and "attested by those who had themselves seen John face to face." There was, however, in his day, a very remarkable variation, sustained by Cod. C, and "some" copies, known to, but not approved by, Irenaeus, namely, 616. (ci"j, i.e., eJxakovsioi devka e}x) In the Anglo-American revision this reading is noted in the margin.

"The number of a man" may mean either the number of an individual, or of a corporate person, or a human number (Menschenzahl), i.e., a number according to ordinary human reckoning (so Bleek, who compares mevtron ajnqrwvpou, , "the measure of a man," Rev. 21:17, and Isa. 8:1). Just because the number may be counted in the customary way, the writer could expect the reader to find it out. He made the solution difficult indeed, but not impossible. Dr. Lee (p. 687) deems it not inconsistent with a proper view of inspiration that John himself did not know the meaning of the number. But how could he then ask his less knowing readers to count the number?
The mystic use of numbers (the rabbinical Ghematria, gewmetriva) was familiar to the Jews in Babylon, and passed from them to the Greeks in Asia. It occurs in the Cabbala, in the Sibylline Books (I. 324–331), in the Epistle of Barnabas, and was very common also among the Gnostic sects (e g., the Abrasax or Abraxas, which signified the unbegotten Father, and the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, corresponding to the number of days in the year).(399) It arose from the employment of the letters of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets for the designation of numbers. The Hebrew Aleph counts 1, Beth 2, etc., Yodh 10; but Kaph (the eleventh letter) counts 20, Resh (the twentieth letter) 200, etc. The Greek letters, with the addition of an acute accent (as a’, b’), have the same numerical value in their order down to Sigma, which counts 200; except that "’ (st) is used for 6, and F’ (an antiquated letter Koppa between p and r) for 90. The Hebrew alphabet ends with *Ta**u =* 400, the Greek with Omega = 800. To express thousands an accent is put beneath the letter, as,a, = 1,000; ,b, = 2,000; ,i, = 10,000.
On this fact most interpretations of the Apocalyptic puzzle are based. It is urged by Bleek, DeWette, Wieseler, and others, that the number 666 must be deciphered from the Greek alphabet, since the book was written in Greek and for Greek readers, and uses the Greek letters Alpha and Omega repeatedly as a designation of Christ, the Beginning and the End (1:8; 21:6; 22:13). On the other hand, Ewald and Renan, and all who favor the Nero-hypothesis, appeal against this argument to the strongly Hebraistic spirit and coloring of the Apocalypse and the familiarity of its Jewish Christian readers with the Hebrew alphabet. The writer, moreover, may have preferred this for the purpose of partial concealment; just as he substituted Babylon for Rome (comp. 1 Pet. 5:13). But after all, the former view is much more natural. John wrote to churches of Asia Minor, chiefly gathered from Gentile converts who knew no Hebrew. Had he addressed Christians in Palestine, the case might be different.
The number 666 (three sixes) must, in itself, be a significant number, if we keep in view the symbolism of numbers which runs through the whole Apocalypse. It is remarkable that the numerical value of the name Jesus is 888 (three eights), and exceeds the trinity of the sacred number (777) as much as the number of the beast falls below it.(400)
The "beast" coming out of the sea and having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1–10) is the anti-Christian world-power at war with the church of Christ. It is, as in Daniel, an apt image of the brutal nature of the pagan state. It is, when in conflict with the church, the secular or political Antichrist; while "the false prophet," who works signs and deceives the worshippers of the beast (16:13; 19:20; 20:10), is the intellectual and spiritual Antichrist, in close alliance with the former, his high-priest and minister of cultus, so to say, and represents the idolatrous religion which animates and supports the secular imperialism. In wider application, the false prophet may be taken as the personification of all false doctrine and heresy by which the world is led astray. For as there are "many Antichrists," so there are also many false prophets. The name "Antichrist," however, never occurs in the Apocalypse, but only in the Epistles of John (five times), and there in the plural, in the sense of "false prophets" or heretical teachers, who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:1–3). Paul designates the Antichrist as, "the man of sin," the son of perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God" (2 Thess. 2:3, 4). But he seems to look upon the Roman empire as a restraining power which, for a time at least, prevented the full outbreak of the "mystery of lawlessness," then already at work (2:6–8). He thus wrote a year or two before the accession of Nero, and sixteen years or more before the composition of the Apocalypse.

The beast must refer to heathen Rome and the seven heads to seven emperors. This is evident from the allusion to the "seven mountains," that is, the seven-hilled city (urbs septicollis) on which the woman sits, 17:9. But not a few commentators give it a wider meaning, and understand by the heads as many world-monarchies, including those of Daniel, before Christ, and extending to the last times. So Auberlen, Ganssen, Hengstenberg, Von Hofmann, Godet, and many English divines.

The numerous interpretations of the mystic number of the beast may be reduced to three classes:

(a) The figures 666 represent the letters composing the name of a historical power, or of a single man, in conflict with Christ and his church. Here belong the explanations: Latinus, Caesar-Augustus, Nero, and other Roman emperors down to Diocletian. Even such names as Julian the Apostate, Genseric, Mohammed (Maometis), Luther (Martinus Lauterus), Joannes Calvinus, Beza Antitheos, Louis XIV., Napoleon Bonaparte, the Duke of Reichstadt (called "King of Rome"), Napoleon III., have been discovered in the three sixes by a strange kind of imposition.(401)

(b) The number is chronological, and designates the duration of the life of the beast, whether it be heathenism, or Mohammedanism, or popery.

We now proceed to the principal interpretations.

Latinus or the Roman Empire.

Lateinos (Latei'no" for lati'no", Latinus), i.e., the Latin or Roman empire. This is the numerical value of 666 in Greek: l = 30 +a = 1 + t = 300 + e = 5 + i = 10 + n = 50 + o = 70 + s = 200 = total 666. The Greek form Latei'no" is no valid objection; for ei often represents the Latin long i, as in jAntonei'no", Paulei'no", Papei'ro" Sabei'no", Faustei'o". J. E. Clarke shows that hJ Latinh; basileiva, "the Latin empire," likewise gives the number 666.(402)

This interpretation is the oldest we know of, and is already mentioned by Irenaeus, the first among the Fathers who investigated the problem, and who, as a pupil of Polycarp in Smyrna (d. 155), the personal friend of John, deserves special consideration as a witness of traditions from the school of the beloved disciple. He mentions three interpretations, all based on the Greek alphabet, namely Eujanqa" (which is of no account), Lateino" (which he deems possible), and Teitan, i.e., Titus (which he, upon the whole, prefers), but he abstains from a positive decision, for the reason that the Holy Scripture does not clearly proclaim the name of the beast or Antichrist.(403)

The interpretation Latinus is the only sensible one among the three, and adopted by Hippolytus, Bellarmin, Eichhorn, Bleek, DeWette, Ebrard, Düsterdieck, Alford, Wordsworth, Lee, and others.

Latinus was the name of a king of Latium, but not of any Roman emperor. Hence it must here be taken in a generic sense, and applied to the whole heathen Roman empire.

Here the Roman Catholic divines stop.(404) But many Protestant commentators apply it also, in a secondary sense, to the Latin or papal church as far as it repeated in its persecuting spirit the sins of heathen Rome. The second beast which is described, Rev. 13:11–17, as coming out of the earth, and having two horns like unto a lamb, and speaking as a dragon, and exercising all the authority of the first beast in his sight, is referred to the papacy. The false prophet receives a similar application. So Luther, Vitringa, Bengel, Auberlen, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and many English divines.

Dean Alford advocates this double application in his Commentary. "This name," he says, "describes the common character of the rulers of the former Pagan Roman Empire—’Latini sunt qui nunc regnant,’ Iren.: and, which Irenaeus could not foresee, unites under itself the character of the later Papal Roman Empire also, as revived and kept up by the agency of its false prophet, the priesthood. The Latin Empire, the Latin Church, Latin Christianity, have ever been its commonly current appellations: its language, civil and ecclesiastical, has ever been Latin: its public services, in defiance of the most obvious requisite for public worship, have ever been throughout the world conducted in Latin; there is no one word which could so completely describe its character, and at the same time unite the ancient and modern attributes of the two beasts, as this. Short of saying absolutely that this was the word in St. John’s mind, I have the strongest persuasion that no other can be found approaching so near to a complete solution." Bishop Wordsworth gives the same anti-papal interpretation to the beast, and indulges in a variety of pious and farfetched fancies. See his Com. on 13:18, and his special work on the Apocalypse.

Nero.

The Apocalypse is a Christian counterblast against the Neronian persecution, and Nero is represented as the beast of the abyss who will return as Antichrist. The number 666 signifies the very name of this imperial monster in Hebrew letters, rs'qi @woonoe , Neron Kaesar, as follows: n (n) = 50, r (r) = 200, / (o) = 6, @ (n) = 50, q (k) = 100, s (s) = 60, r (r) = 200; in all 666. The Neronian coins of Asia bear the inscription: Nerwn Kai'sar. But the omission of the iy (which would add 10 to 666) from rsyq = Kai'sar, has been explained by Ewald (Johanneische Schriften, II. 263) from the Syriac in which it is omitted, and this view is confirmed by the testimony of inscriptions of Palmyra from the third century; see Renan (L’Antechrist, p. 415).

The coincidence, therefore, must be admitted, and is at any rate most remarkable, since Nero was the first, as well as the most wicked, of all imperial persecutors of Christianity, and eminently worthy of being characterized as the beast from the abyss, and being regarded as the type and forerunner of Antichrist.

This interpretation, moreover, has the advantage of giving the number of a man or a particular person (which is not the case with Lateinos), and affords a satisfactory explanation of the varians lectio 616; for this number precisely corresponds to the Latin form, Nero Caesar, and was probably substituted by a Latin copyist, who in his calculation dropped the final Nun (= 50), from Neron (666 less 50=616).

The series of Roman emperors (excluding Julius Caesar), according to this explanation, is counted thus: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba. This makes Nero (who died June 9, 68) the fifth, and Galba the sixth, and seems to fit precisely the passage 17:10: "Five [of the seven heads of the beast] are fallen, the one [Galba] is, the other [the seventh] is not yet come; and when he cometh he must continue a little while." This leads to the conclusion that the Apocalypse was written during the short reign of Galba, between June 9, 68, and January 15, 69. It is further inferred from 17:11 ("the beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goeth into perdition"), that, in the opinion of the seer and in agreement with a popular rumor, Nero, one of the seven emperors, would return as the eighth in the character of Antichrist, but shortly perish.

This plausible solution of the enigma was almost simultaneously and independently discovered, between 1831 and 1837, by several German scholars, each claiming the credit of originality, viz.: C. F. A. Fritzsche (in the "Annalen der gesammten Theol. Liter.," I. 3, Leipzig, 1831); F. Benary (in the "Zeitschrift für specul. Theol.," Berlin, 1836); F. Hitzig (in Ostern und Pfingsten, Heidelb., 1837); E. Reuss (in the "Hallesche Allg. Lit.-Zeitung" for Sept., 1837); and Ewald, who claims to have made the discovery before 1831, but did not publish it till 1862. It has been adopted by Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Hausrath, Krenkel, Gebhardt, Renan, Aubé, Réville, Sabatier, Sam. Davidson (I. 291); and among American commentators by Stuart and Cowles. It is just now the most popular interpretation, and regarded by its champions as absolutely conclusive.

But, as already stated in the text, there are serious objections to the Nero-hypothesis:

The language and readers of the Apocalypse suggest a Greek rather than a Hebrew explanation of the numerical riddle.
The seer clearly distinguishes the beast, as a collective name for the Roman empire (so used also by Daniel), from the seven heads, i.e., kings (basilei'") or emperors. Nero is one of the five heads who ruled before the date of the Apocalypse. He was "slain" (committed suicide), and the empire fell into anarchy for two years, until Vespasian restored it, and so the death-stroke was healed (Rev. 13:3). The three emperors between Nero and Vespasian (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) were usurpers, and represent an interregnum and the deadly wound of the beast. This at least is a more worthy interpretation and consistent with the actual facts.

It should be noticed, however, that Josephus, Ant. XVIIII. 2, 2; 6, 10, very distinctly includes Julius Caesar among the emperors, and calls Augustus the second, Tiberius the third, Caius Caligula the fourth Roman emperor. Suetonius begins his Lives of the Twelve Caesars with Julius and ends with Domitian, including the lives of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. This fact tends at all events to weaken the foundation of the Nero-hypothesis.

It is difficult to conceive of a reasonable motive for concealing the detested name of Nero after his death. For this reason Cowles makes Nero the sixth emperor (by beginning the series with Julius Caesar) and assigns the composition to his persecuting reign. But this does not explain the wound of the beast and the statement that "it was and is not."
A radical error, such as the belief in the absurd heathen fable of the return of Nero, is altogether incompatible with the lofty character and profound wisdom of the Apocalypse, and would destroy all confidence in its prophecy. If John, as these writers maintain, composed it in 68, he lived long enough to be undeceived, and would have corrected the fatal blunder or withheld the book from circulation.
It seems incredible that such an easy solution of the problem should have remained unknown for eighteen centuries and been reserved for the wits of half a dozen rival rationalists in Germany. Truth is truth, and must be thankfully accepted from any quarter and at any time; yet as the Apocalypse was written for the benefit of contemporaries of Nero, one should think that such a solution would not altogether have escaped them. Irenaeus makes no mention of it.

The Emperor of Rome.

Caesar Romae, from . m/r rsyq. So Ewald formerly (in his first commentary, published in 1828). But this gives the number 616, which is rejected by the best critics in favor of 666. In his later work, Ewald adopts the Nero-hypothesis (Die Johanneischen Schriften, Bd. II., 1862, p. 202 sq.).

Caligula.

From Gavio" Kai'sar. But this counts likewise 616.

Titus.

The Greek Tei'tan. Irenaeus considers this the most probable interpretation, because the word is composed of six letters, and belongs to a royal tyrant. If we omit the final n (n), we get the other reading (616). The objection is that Titus, the destroyer of Jerusalem, was one of the best emperors, and not a persecutor of Christians.

Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

Wetstein refers the letters to Titus Flavius Vespasianus, father and sons (Titus and Domitian). He thinks that John used both numbers, 616 in the first, 666 in the second edition of his book. "Eleganter" he says in his notes, et apposite Joannes Titum Flavium Vespasianum patrem et filios hoc nomine designat ... Convenit secundo nomen. Teitavn praenomini ipsorum Titus. Res ipsa etiam convenit. Titanes fuerunt qeomavcoi, tales etiam Vespasiani." Nov. Test., II., p. 806; comp. his critical note on p. 805.

Diocletian.

Diocletian, Emperor, in Roman characters, Diocles Augustus, counting only some of the letters, namely: DIo CLes aVg Vst Vs.(405) Diocletian was the last of the persecuting emperors (d. 313). So Bossuet. To his worthless guess the Huguenots opposed the name of the "grand monarch" and persecutor of Protestants, Louis XIV., which yields the same result (LVDo VICVs).

The Roman Emperors from Augustus To Vespasian.

Märcker (in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1868, p. 699) has found out that the initial letters of the first ten Roman emperors from Octavianus (Augustus) to Titus, including the three usurpers Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, yield the numerical value of 666. Düsterdieck (p. 467) calls this "eine frappante Spielerei."

Caesar Augustus.

Kaisarsebaston (for-", suited to the neuter qhrivon), i.e., the "Caesar Augustan" beast.(406) The official designation of the Roman emperors was Kaivsar Sebastov" (Caesar Augustus), in which their blasphemous apotheosis culminates. In support of it may be quoted "the names of blasphemy on the heads of the beast," Rev. 13:1.

This is the conjecture proposed by Dr. Wieseler in his book: Zur Geschichte der Neutest. Schrift und des Urchristenthums, 1880, p. 169. It is certainly ingenious and more consistent with the character of the Apocalypse than the Nero-hypothesis. It substantially agrees with the interpretation Lateinos. But the substitution of a final n for " is an objection, though not more serious than the omission of the yodh from qyrs The

Chronological Solutions.—The Duration of Antichrist.

The number 666 signifies the duration of the beast or antichristian world power, and the false prophet associated with the beast.

The duration of Heathenism. But heathen Rome, which persecuted the church, was Christianized after the conversion of Constantine, a.d. 311. The other forms and subsequent history of heathenism lie outside of the apocalyptic vision.
Mohammedanism. Pope Innocent III., when rousing Western Europe to a new crusade, declared the Saracens to be the beast, and Mohammed the false prophet whose power would last six hundred and sixty-six years. See his bull of 1213, in which he summoned the fourth Lateran Council, in Hardouin, Conc., Tom. VII. 3. But six hundred and sixty-six years have passed since the Hegira (622), and even since the fourth Lateran Council (1215); yet Islam still sits on the throne in Constantinople, and rules over one hundred and sixty million of consciences.

(3). The anti-Christian Papacy. This interpretation was suggested by mediaeval sects hostile to Rome, and was matured by orthodox Protestant divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries under the fresh impression of the fearful persecutions which were directly instigated or approved by the papacy, and which surpass in cruelty and extent the persecutions of heathen Rome. It is asserted that the terrible Duke of Alva alone put more Protestants to death in the Netherlands within a few years than all the heathen emperors from Nero to Diocletian; and that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition (105,000 persons in eighteen years under Torquemada’s administration) outnumber the ancient martyrs. It became almost a Protestant article of faith that the mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, riding on the beast, the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Apoc. 17:5 sqq.), is none other than the pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian church of Rome, and this view is still widely prevalent, especially in Great Britain and North America.

Luther struck the key-note of this anti-popery exegesis. He had at first a very low opinion of the Apocalypse, and would not recognize it as apostolic or prophetic (1522), but afterward he utilized for polemic purposes (in a preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1530). He dated the one thousand years (Rev. 20:7) with Augustin from the composition of the book, and the six hundred and sixty-six years from Gregory VII., as the supposed founder of the papacy, and understood Gog and Magog to mean the unspeakable Turks and the Jews. As Gregory VII. was elected pope 1073, the anti-Christian era ought to have come to an end a.d. 1739; but that year passed off without any change in the history of the papacy.

Luther was followed by Chytraeus (1563), Selnecker (1567), Hoe v. Honegg (1610 and 1640), and other Lutheran commentators. Calvin and Beza wisely abstained from prophetic exposition, but other Reformed divines carried out the anti-popery scheme with much learning, as Bibliander (1549 and 1559), Bullinger (1557), David Pareus (1618), Joseph Mede (the founder of the ingenious system of synchronism, in his Clavis Apocalyptica, 1627), Coccejus (1696), Vitringa (a very learned and useful commentator, 1705, 3d ed. 1721), and Joh. Albrecht Bengel (in his Gnomon, his Ordo Temporum, 1741, and especially his Erklärte Offenbarung Johannis, 1740, new ed. 1834). This truly great and good man elaborated a learned scheme of chronological interpretation, and fixed the end of the anti-Christian (papal) reign at the year 1836, and many pious people among his admirers in Würtemburg were in anxious expectation of the millennium during that year. But it passed away without any serious change, and this failure, according to Bengel’s own correct prediction, indicates a serious error in his scheme. Later writers have again and again predicted the fall of the papacy and the beginning of the millennium, advancing the date as times progress; but the years 1848 and 1870 have passed away, and the Pope still lives, enjoying a green old age, with the additional honor of infallibility, which the Fathers never heard of, which even St. Peter never claimed, and St. Paul effectually disputed at Antioch. All mathematical calculations about the second advent are doomed to disappointment, and those who want to know more than our blessed Lord knew in the days of his flesh deserve to be disappointed. "It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority" (Acts 1:7). This settles the question.

Mystical and Symbolical Interpretations.

The number is neither alphabetical nor chronological, but the mystical or symbolical name of Antichrist, who is yet to come. Here we meet again with different views.

Primasius, the African commentator of the Apocalypse (a pupil of Augustin), mentions two names as giving the general characteristics of Antichrist: jAntemo" and ajrnoume, the former honori contrarius the other from ajrnevomai, to deny, by which the Antichrist is justly described, "utpote per duas partes orationis, nominis scilicet et verbi, et personae qualitas et operis insinuatur asperitas." Utterly worthless. See Lücke, p. 997. Züllig finds in the figure the name of Bileam. Not much better is Hengstenberg’s explanation: Adonikam, i.e., "The Lord arises," a good name for Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:4)! He bases it on Ezra 2:13: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-six." Ezra gives a list of the children of Israel who returned from the captivity under Zerubbabel. What this has to do with Antichrist is difficult to see.

Von Hofmann and Füller think that the number implies the personal name of Antichrist.

Another view is this: the number is symbolical, like all other numbers in the Apocalypse, and signifies the anti-Christian world-power in all its successive forms from heathen Rome down to the end. Hence it admits of many applications, as there are "many Antichrists." The number six is the number of human work and toil (six days of the week), as seven is the number of divine rest. Or, six is the half of twelve—the number of the church—and indicates the divided condition of the temporal power. Three sixes signify worldliness (worldly glory, worldly wisdom, worldly civilization) at the height of power, which with all vaunted strength is but weakness and folly, and falls short of the divine perfection symbolized by the numbers seven and twelve. Such or similar views were suggested by Herder, Auberlen, Rösch, Hengstenberg, Burger, Maurice, Wordsworth, Vaughan, Carpenter, etc.

The Messiah of Satan.

To the class of mystical interpretation belongs the recent view of Professor Godet, of Neuchatel, which deserves special mention. This eminent commentator sees in 666 the emblematic name of The Messiah of Satan in opposition to the divine Messiah. The number was originally represented by the three letters cx"’. The first and the last letters are an abridgment of the name of Christ, and have the value of 606 (x = 600 + "= 6); the middle x is, in virtue of its form and of the sibilant sound, the emblem of Satan, and as a cipher has the value of 60. Satan is called in the Apocalypse the old serpent in allusion to the history of the temptation (Gen. 3). This explanation was first suggested by Heumann and Herder, and is made by Godet the basis of an original theory, namely, that Antichrist or the man of sin will be a Jew who will set up a carnal Israel in opposition to the true Messiah, and worship the prince of this world in order to gain universal empire.(407) Corruptio optimi pessima. Renan says: "Nothing can equal in wickedness the wickedness of Jews: at the same time the best of men have been Jews; you may say of this race whatever good or evil you please, without danger of overstepping the truth." In blasphemy, as well as in adoration, the Jew is the foremost of mankind. Only an apostate can blaspheme with all his heart. Our Gentile Voltaires are but lambs as compared with Jews in reviling Christ and his church. None but Israel could give birth to Judas, none but apostate Israel can give birth to Antichrist. Israel answers precisely to the description of the apocalyptic beast, which was and is not and shall be (Rev. 17:11), which was wounded to death, and is to be miraculously healed, in order to play, as the eighth head, the part of Antichrist. Godet refers to the rising power of the Jews in wealth, politics, and literature, and especially their command of the anti-Christian press in Christian countries, as indications of the approach of the fulfilment of this prophecy.

Godet holds to the late date of the Apocalypse under Domitian, and rejects the application of the seven heads of the beast to Roman emperors. He applies them, like Auberlen, Hengstenberg, and others, to as many empires, before and after Christ, but brings in, as a new feature, the Herodian dynasty, which was subject to the Roman power.

According to his view, the first head is ancient Egypt trying to destroy Israel in its cradle; the second is the Assyro-Babylonian empire which destroyed the kingdom of the ten tribes, and then Jerusalem; the third is the Persian empire, which held restored Israel under its authority; the fourth is the Greek monarchy under Antiochus Epiphanes (the little horn of Daniel 8, the Antichrist of the Old Testament), who attempted to suppress the worship of God in Israel, and to substitute that of Zeus; the fifth is the Jewish state under the Herods and the pontificates of Annas and Caiaphas, who crucified the Saviour and then tried to destroy his church; the sixth is the Roman empire, which is supposed to embrace all political power in Europe to this day; the seventh head is that power of short duration which shall destroy the whole political system of Europe, and prepare it for the arrival of Antichrist from the bosom of infidel Judaism. In this way Godet harmonizes the Apocalypse with the teaching of Paul concerning the restraining effect of the Roman empire, which will be overthrown in order to give way to the full sway of Antichrist. The eighth head is Israel restored, with a carnal Messiah at its head, who will preach the worship of humanity and overthrow Rome, the old enemy of the Jews (Apoc. 18), but be overthrown in turn by Christ (Rev. 19 and 2 Thess. 2:8). Then follows the millennium, the sabbath of humanity on earth after its long week of work, not necessarily a visible reign of Christ, but a reign by his Spirit. At the end of this period, Satan, who as yet is only bound, shall try once more to destroy the work of God, but shall only prepare his final defeat, and give the signal for the universal judgment (Rev. 20). The terrestrial state founded on the day of creation now gives place to the now heavens and the new earth (Rev. 21), in which God shall be all in all. Anticipating the sight of this admirable spectacle, John prostrates himself and invites all the faithful to cry with the Spirit and the spouse, "Lord, come—come soon" (Rev. 22). What a vast drama! What a magnificent conclusion to the Scriptures opening with Genesis! The first creation made man free; the second shall make him holy, and then the work of God is accomplished.

Conclusion.

A very ingenious interpretation, with much valuable truth, but not the last word yet on this mysterious book, and very doubtful in its solution of the numerical riddle. The primary meaning of the beast, as already remarked, is heathen Rome, as represented by that monster tyrant and persecutor, Nero, the very incarnation of satanic wickedness. The oldest interpretation (Lateinos), known already to a grand-pupil of St. John, is also the best, and it is all the more plausible because the other interpretations which give us the alphabetical value of 666, namely, Nero and Caesar Augustus, likewise point to the same Roman power which kept up a bloody crusade of three hundred years against Christianity. But the political beast, and its intellectual ally, the false prophet, appear again and again in history, and make war upon the church and the truth of Christ, within and without the circle of the old Roman empire. Many more wonders of exegetical ability and historical learning will yet be performed before the mysteries of Revelation are solved, if they ever will be solved before the final fulfilment. In the meantime, the book will continue to accomplish its practical mission of comfort and encouragement to every Christian in the conflict of faith for the crown of life.

§ 102. Concluding Reflections. Faith and Criticism.

There is no necessary conflict between faith and criticism any more than between revelation and reason or between faith and philosophy. God is the author of both, and he cannot contradict himself. There is an uncritical faith and a faithless criticism as there is a genuine philosophy and a philosophy falsely so called; but this is no argument either against faith or criticism; for the best gifts are liable to abuse and perversion; and the noblest works of art may be caricatured. The apostle of faith directs us to "prove all things," and to "hold fast that which is good." We believe in order to understand, and true faith is the mother of knowledge. A rational faith in Christianity, as the best and final religion which God gave to mankind, owes it to itself to examine the foundation on which it rests; and it is urged by an irresistible impulse to vindicate the truth against every form of error. Christianity needs no apology. Conscious of its supernatural strength, it can boldly meet every foe and convert him into an ally.

Looking back upon the history of the apostolic age, it appears to us as a vast battle-field of opposite tendencies and schools. Every inch of ground is disputed and has to be reconquered; every fact, as well as every doctrine of revelation, is called in question; every hypothesis is tried; all the resources of learning, acumen, and ingenuity are arrayed against the citadel of the Christian faith. The citadel is impregnable, and victory is certain, but not to those who ignorantly or superciliously underrate the strength of the besieging army. In the sixteenth century the contest was between Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism; in the nineteenth century the question is Christianity or infidelity. Then both parties believed in the inspiration of the New Testament and the extent of the canon, differing only in the interpretation; now inspiration is denied, and the apostolicity of all but four or five books is assailed. Then the Word of God, with or without tradition, was the final arbiter of religious controversies; now human reason is the ultimate tribunal.

We live in an age of discovery, invention, research, and doubt. Scepticism is well nigh omnipresent in the thinking world. It impregnates the atmosphere. We can no more ignore it than the ancient Fathers could ignore the Gnostic speculations of their day. Nothing is taken for granted; nothing believed on mere authority; everything must be supported by adequate proof, everything explained in its natural growth from the seed to the fruit. Roman Catholics believe in an infallible oracle in the Vatican; but whatever the oracle may decree, the earth moves and will continue to move around the sun. Protestants, having safely crossed the Red Sea, cannot go back to the flesh-pots of the land of bondage, but must look forward to the land of promise. In the night, says a proverb, all cattle are black, but the daylight reveals the different colors.

Why did Christ not write the New Testament, as Mohammed wrote the Koran? Writing was not beneath his dignity; he did write once in the sand, though we know not what. God himself wrote the Ten Commandments on two tables of stone. But Moses broke them to pieces when he saw that the people of Israel worshipped the golden calf before the thunders from Sinai had ceased to reverberate in their ears. They might have turned those tables into idols. God buried the great law-giver out of sight and out of the reach of idolatry. The gospel was still less intended to be a dumb idol than the law. It is not a killing letter but a life-giving spirit. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words of Christ "are spirit and are life." A book written by his own unerring hand, unless protected by a perpetual miracle, would have been subject to the same changes and corruptions in the hands of fallible transcribers and printers as the books of his disciples, and the original autograph would have perished with the brittle papyrus. Nor would it have escaped the unmerciful assaults of sceptical and infidel critics, and misinterpretations of commentators and preachers. He himself was crucified by the hierarchy of his own people, whom he came to save. What better fate could have awaited his book? Of course, it would have risen from the dead, in spite of the doubts and conjectures and falsehoods of unbelieving men; but the same is true of the writings of the apostles, though thousands of copies have been burned by heathens and false Christians. Thomas might put his hand into the wound-prints of his risen Lord; but "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed."

We must believe in the Holy Spirit who lives and moves in the Church and is the invisible power behind the written and printed word.

The form in which the authentic records of Christianity have come down to us, with their variations and difficulties, is a constant stimulus to study and research and calls into exercise all the intellectual and moral faculties of men. Every one must strive after the best understanding of the truth with a faithful use of his opportunities and privileges, which are multiplying with every generation.

The New Testament is a revelation of spiritual and eternal truth to faith, and faith is the work of the Holy Spirit, though rooted in the deepest wants and aspirations of man. It has to fight its way through an unbelieving world, and the conflict waxes hotter and hotter as the victory comes nearer. For the last half century the apostolic writings have been passing through the purgatory of the most scorching criticism to which a book can be subjected. The opposition is itself a powerful testimony to their vitality and importance.

There are two kinds of scepticism: one represented by Thomas, honest, earnest, seeking and at last finding the truth; the other represented by Sadducees and Pontius Pilate, superficial, worldly, frivolous, indifferent to truth and ending in despair. With the latter "even the gods reason in vain." When it takes the trouble to assail the Bible, it deals in sneers and ridicule which admit of no serious answer. The roots of infidelity he in the heart and will rather than in the reason and intellect, and wilful opposition to the truth is deaf to any argument. But honest, truth-loving scepticism always deserves regard and sympathy and demands a patient investigation of the real or imaginary difficulties which are involved in the problem of the origin of Christianity. It may be more useful to the church than an unthinking and unreasoning orthodoxy. One of the ablest and purest sceptical critics of the century (DeWette) made the sad, but honorable confession:

"I lived in times of doubt and strife,

When childlike faith was forced to yield;

I struggled to the end of life,

Alas! I did not gain the field."

But he did gain the field, after all, at last; for a few months before his death he wrote and published this significant sentence: "I know that in no other name can salvation be found, than in the name of Jesus Christ the Crucified, and there is nothing higher for mankind than the divine humanity (Gottmenschheit) realized in him, and the kingdom of God planted by him." Blessed are those that seek the truth, for they shall find it.

The critical and historical rationalism which was born and matured in this century in the land of Luther, and has spread in Switzerland, France, Holland, England, Scotland, and America, surpasses in depth and breadth of learning, as well as in earnestness of spirit, all older forms of infidelity and heresy. It is not superficial and frivolous, as the rationalism of the eighteenth century; it is not indifferent to truth, but intensely interested in ascertaining the real facts, and tracing the origin and development of Christianity, as a great historical phenomenon. But it arrogantly claims to be the criticism par excellence, as the Gnosticism of the ancient church pretended to have the monopoly of knowledge. There is a historical, conservative, and constructive criticism, as well as an unhistorical, radical, and destructive criticism; and the former must win the fight as sure as God’s truth will outlast all error. So there is a believing and Christian Gnosticism as well as an unbelieving and anti- (or pseudo-) Christian Gnosticism.

The negative criticism of the present generation has concentrated its forces upon the life of Christ and the apostolic age, and spent an astonishing amount of patient research upon the minutest details of its history. And its labors have not been in vain; on the contrary, it has done a vast amount of good, as well as evil. Its strength lies in the investigation of the human and literary aspect of the Bible; its weakness in the ignoring of its divine and spiritual character. It forms thus the very antipode of the older orthodoxy, which so overstrained the theory of inspiration as to reduce the human agency to the mechanism of the pen. We must look at both aspects. The Bible is the Word of God and the word of holy men of old. It is a revelation of man, as well as of God. It reveals man in all his phases of development—innocence, fall, redemption—in all the varieties of character, from heavenly purity to satanic wickedness, with all his virtues and vices, in all his states of experience, and is an ever-flowing spring of inspiration to the poet, the artist, the historian, and divine. It reflects and perpetuates the mystery of the incarnation. It is the word of him who proclaimed himself the Son of Man, as well as the Son of God. "Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." Here all is divine and all is human.

No doubt the New Testament is the result of a gradual growth and conflict of different forces, which were included in the original idea of Christianity and were drawn out as it passed from Christ to his disciples, from the Jews to the Gentiles, from Jerusalem to Antioch and Rome, and as it matured in the mind of the leading apostles. No doubt the Gospels and Epistles were written by certain men, at a certain time, in a certain place, under certain surroundings, and for definite ends; and all these questions are legitimate objects of inquiry and eminently deserving of ever-renewed investigation. Many obscure points have been cleared up, thanks, in part, to these very critics, who intended to destroy, and helped to build up.

The literary history of the apostolic age, like its missionary progress, was guided by a special providence. Christ only finished a part of his work while on earth. He pointed his disciples to greater works, which they would accomplish in his name and by his power, after his resurrection. He promised them his unbroken presence, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, who, as the other Advocate, should lead them into the whole truth and open to them the understanding of all his words. The Acts of the Apostles are a history of the Holy Spirit, or of the post-resurrection work of Christ in establishing his kingdom on earth. Filled with that Spirit, the apostles and evangelists went forth into a hostile world and converted it to Christ by their living word, and they continue their conquering march by their written word.

Unbelieving criticism sees only the outside surface of the greatest movement in history, and is blind to the spiritual forces working from within or refuses to acknowledge them as truly divine. In like manner, the materialistic and atheistic scientists of the age conceive of nature’s laws without a lawgiver; of a creature without a creator; and stop with the effect, without rising to the cause, which alone affords a rational explanation of the effect.

And here we touch upon the deepest spring of all forms of rationalism, and upon the gulf which inseparably divides it from supernaturalism. It is the opposition to the supernatural and the miraculous. It denies God in nature and God in history, and, in its ultimate consequences, it denies the very existence of God. Deism and atheism have no place for a miracle; but belief in the existence of an Almighty Maker of all things visible and invisible, as the ultimate and all-sufficient cause of all phenomena in nature and in history, implies the possibility of miracle at any time; not, indeed, as a violation of his own laws, but as a manifestation of his law-giving and creative power over and above (not against) the regular order of events. The reality of the miracle, in any particular case, then, becomes a matter of historical investigation. It cannot be disposed of by a simple denial from à priori philosophical prejudice; but must be fairly examined, and, if sufficiently corroborated by external and internal evidence, it must be admitted.

Now, the miracles of Christ cannot be separated from his person and his teachings. His words are as marvellous as his deeds; both form a harmonious whole, and they stand or fall together. His person is the great miracle, and his miracles are simply his natural works. He is as much elevated above other men as his words and deeds are above ordinary words and deeds. He is separated from all mortals by his absolute freedom from sin. He, himself, claims superhuman origin and supernatural powers; and to deny them is to make him a liar and impostor. It is impossible to maintain his human perfection, which all respectable rationalists admit and even emphasize, and yet to refuse his testimony concerning himself. The Christ of Strauss and of Renan is the most contradictory of all characters; the most incredible of all enigmas. There is no possible scientific mediation between a purely humanitarian conception of Christ, no matter how high he may be raised in the scale of beings, and the faith in Christ as the Son of God, whom Christendom has adored from the beginning and still adores as the Lord and Saviour of the world.

Nor can we eliminate the supernatural element from the Apostolic Church without destroying its very life and resolving it into a gigantic illusion. What becomes of Paul if we deny his conversion, and how shall we account for his conversion without the Resurrection and Ascension? The greatest of modern sceptics paused at the problem, and felt almost forced to admit an actual miracle, as the only rational solution of that conversion. The Holy Spirit was the inspiring and propelling power of the apostolic age, and made the fishers of Galilee fishers of men.

A Christian, who has experienced the power of the gospel in his heart, can have no difficulty with the supernatural. He is as sure of the regenerating and converting agency of the Spirit of God and the saving efficacy of Christ as he is of his own natural existence. He has tasted the medicine and has been healed. He may say with the man who was born blind and made to see: "One thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." This is a short creed; but stronger than any argument. The fortress of personal experience is impregnable; the logic of stubborn facts is more cogent than the logic of reason. Every genuine conversion from sin to holiness is a psychological miracle, as much so as the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

The secret or open hostility to the supernatural is the moving spring of infidel criticism. We may freely admit that certain difficulties about the time and place of composition and other minor details of the Gospels and Epistles are not, and perhaps never can be, satisfactorily solved; but it is, nevertheless, true that they are far better authenticated by internal and external evidence than any books of the great Greek and Roman classics, or of Philo and Josephus, which are accepted by scholars without a doubt. As early as the middle of the second century, that is, fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, when yet many of his personal pupils and friends must have been living, the four Canonical Gospels, no more and no less, were recognized and read in public worship as sacred books, in the churches of Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Italy, and Gaul; and such universal acceptance and authority in the face of Jewish and heathen hostility and heretical perversion can only be explained on the ground that they were known and used long before. Some of them, Matthew and John, were quoted and used in the first quarter of the second century by Orthodox and Gnostic writers. Every new discovery, as the last book of the pseudo-"Clementine Homilies," the "Philosophumena" of Hippolytus, the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, and every deeper investigation of the "Gospel Memoirs" of Justin Martyr, and the "Gospel" of Marcion in its relation to Luke, have strengthened the cause of historical and conservative criticism and inflicted bleeding wounds on destructive criticism. If quotations from the end of the first and the beginning of the second century are very rare, we must remember that we have only a handful of literary documents from that period, and that the second generation of Christians was not a race of scholars and scribes and critics, but of humble, illiterate confessors and martyrs, who still breathed the bracing air of the living teaching, and personal reminiscences of the apostles and evangelists.

But the Synoptical Gospels bear the strongest internal marks of having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70), which is therein prophesied by Christ as a future event and as the sign of the fast approaching judgment of the world, in a manner that is consistent only with such early composition. The Epistle to the Hebrews, likewise, was written when the Temple was still standing, and sacrifices were offered from day to day. Yet, as this early date is not conceded by all, we will leave the Epistle out of view. The Apocalypse of John is very confidently assigned to the year 68 or 69 by Baur, Renan, and others, who would put the Gospels down to a much later date. They also concede the Pauline authorship of the great anti-Judaic Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, and make them the very basis of their assaults upon the minor Pauline Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, on the ground of exaggerated or purely imaginary differences. Those Epistles of Paul were written twelve or fourteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. This brings us within less than thirty years of the resurrection of Christ and the birthday of the church.

Now, if we confine ourselves to these five books, which the most exacting and rigorous criticism admits to be apostolic—the four Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse—they alone are sufficient to establish the foundation of historical faith; for they confirm by direct statement or allusion every important fact and doctrine in the gospel history, without referring to the written Gospels. The memory and personal experience of the writers—Paul and John—goes back to the vision of Damascus, to the scenes of the Resurrection and Crucifixion, and the first call of the disciples on the banks of the Jordan and the shores of the Lake of Galilee. Criticism must first reason Paul and John out of history, or deny that they ever wrote a line, before it can expect sensible men to surrender a single chapter of the Gospels.

Strong as the external evidence is, the internal evidence of the truth and credibility of the apostolic writings is still stronger, and may be felt to this day by the unlearned as well as the scholar. They widely differ in style and spirit from all post-apostolic productions, and occupy a conspicuous isolation even among the best of books. This position they have occupied for eighteen centuries among the most civilized nations of the globe; and from this position they are not likely to be deposed.

We must interpret persons and events not only by themselves, but also in the light of subsequent history. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Christianity can stand this test better than any other religion, and better than any system of philosophy.

Taking our position at the close of the apostolic age, and looking back to its fountain-head and forward to succeeding generations, we cannot but be amazed at the magnitude of the effects produced by the brief public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, which sends its blessings through centuries as an unbroken and ever-expanding river of life. There is absolutely nothing like it in the annals of the race. The Roman empire embraced, at the birth of Christ, over one hundred millions of men, conquered by force, and, after having persecuted his religion for three hundred years, it died away without the possibility of a resurrection. The Christian church now numbers four hundred millions, conquered by the love of Christ, and is constantly increasing. The first century is the life and light of history and the turning point of the ages. If ever God revealed himself to man, if ever heaven appeared on earth, it was in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. He is, beyond any shadow of doubt, and by the reluctant consent of sceptics and infidels, the wisest of the wise, the purest of the pure, and the mightiest of the mighty. His Cross has become the tree of life to all nations; his teaching is still the highest standard of religious truth; his example the unsurpassed ideal of holiness; the Gospels and Epistles of his Galilean disciples are still the book of books, more powerful than all the classics of human wisdom and genius. No book has attracted so much attention, provoked so much opposition, outlived so many persecutions, called forth so much reverence and gratitude, inspired so many noble thoughts and deeds, administered so much comfort and peace from the cradle to the grave to all classes and conditions of men. It is more than a book; it is an institution, an all-pervading omnipresent force, a converting, sanctifying, transforming agency; it rules from the pulpit and the chair; it presides at the family altar; it is the sacred ark of every household, the written conscience of every Christian man, the pillar of cloud by day, the pillar of light by night in the pilgrimage of life. Mankind is bad enough, and human life dark enough with it; but how much worse and how much darker would they be without it? Christianity might live without the letter of the New Testament, but not without the facts and truths which it records and teaches. Were it possible to banish them from the world, the sun of our civilization would be extinguished, and mankind left to midnight darkness, with the dreary prospect of a dreamless and endless Nirvana.

But no power on earth or in hell can extinguish that sun. There it shines on the horizon, the king of day, obscured at times by clouds great or small, but breaking through again and again, and shedding light and life from east to west, until the darkest corners of the globe shall be illuminated. The past is secure; God will take care of the future.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 865): 2 Tim. 3:16. It applies to "every Scripture inspired of God," more immediately to the Old Test., but a fortiori still more to the New.

(2; original 866): Comp. 2 Pet. 3:16, where a collection of Paul’s Epistles is implied.

(3; original 867): This order is restored in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.

(4; original 868): The Codex Sinaiticus puts the Pauline Epistles before the Acts, and the Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy.

(5; original 869): This order agrees with the Muratorian Fragment, the catalogue of Eusebius (H. E., III. 25), that of the Synod of Carthage (a.d 897), and the Codex Basiliensis. Luther took the liberty of disconnecting the Hebrews (which he ascribed to Apollos) from the Pauline Epistles, and putting it and the Epistle of James (which be disliked) at the end of the Catholic Epistles (except Jude)

(6; original 870): The Greek word eujaggevlion which passed into the Latin evangelium, and through this into modern languages (French, German, Italian, etc.), means 1^st, reward for good news to the messenger (in Homer); 2^d, good news, glad tidings; 3^d, glad tidings of Christ and his salvation (so in the New Test.); 4^th, the record of these glad tidings (so in the headings of the Gospels and in ecclesiastical usage). The Saxon "gospel," i.e., God’s spell or good spell (from spellian, to tell), is the nearest idiomatic equivalent for eujaggevlion.

(7; original 871): Irenaeus very properly calls them tetravmorfon to; eujaggevlion, eJni pneuvmati sunecovmenon, quadriforme evangelium quod uno spiritu continetur. Adv. Haer. III. 11, § 8.

(8; original 872): This is expressly disclaimed in John 20:30; comp. 21:25

(9; original 873): Hence Justin Martyr, in his two "Apologies" (written about 146), calls the Gospels "Memoirs" or "Memorabilia" (jApomnhmoneuvmata) of Christ or of the Apostles, in imitation no doubt of the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. That Justin means no other books but our canonical Gospels by theme "Memoirs," which he says were read in public worship on Sunday, there can be no reasonable doubt. See especially Dr. Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880.

(10; original 874): John 20:30, 31:tau'ta de; gevgraptai i{na pisteuvhte o]ti jIhsou'" ejsti;n Cristov" , oJ uiJo;" tou' qeou', kai; i{na pisteuvonte" zeh;n e[chte ejn tw/' ojnovmati auvtou'.

(11; original 875): This characterization is very old, and goes back to Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen 33, where he enumerates the books of the New Test., and says;

Matqei'o" me;n e[grayen JEbraivoi" qauvmata Cristou',

Mavrko" dj jItalivh/, Louka's jAcaiivdi

Pa'si d j jIwavnnh" khvrux mevga" , oujranofoivth".

(12; original 876): See on this subject Fisher’s Beginnings of Christianity, ch. XI.: "Water marks of Age in the New Test, Histories," pp. 363 sqq., especially p. 371.

(13; original 877): Synopsis (conspectus), from suvn, together, and o[yi"*,**view,* is applied since Griesbach (though used before him) to a parallel arrangement of the Gospels so as to exhibit a general view of the whole and to facilitate a comparison. In some sections the fourth Gospel furnishes parallels, especially in the history of the passion and resurrection. The first three Evangelists should not be called Synoptics (as is done by the author of Supernatural Religion, vol. I., 213, and Dr. Davidson), but Synoptists. The former is a Germanism (Synoptiker.)

(14; original 878): Holtzmann (p. 12) and others include also among the verbal coincidences the irregular ajfevwntai (the Doric form of pass. perf., 3 pers., plur.), Matt. 9:2, 5; Mark 2:5, 9; Luke 5:20, 23, and the double augment in ajpekatestavqjh, Matt. 12:13; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10. But the former is ruled out by the better reading ajfiventai, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, in Matt. 9:2, 5, and in Mark 2:5. Moreover, the Doric form is not confined to the New Test., but somewhat widely diffused; see Moulton’s Winer, p. 97, note. And as to the double augment, it occurs also in the Sept. (see Trommius’ Concord., I., 163, sub ajpokaqivsthmi); comp. also ajpekatevsth in Mark 8:25. Ebrard (Wiss. Krit., p. 1054) quotes a passage from Pseudo-Lucian (Philiopatr., c. 27) where ajpekatevsthse occurs.

(15; original 879): Mr. Norton brings out this fact very fully in his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (Boston, ed. of 1875, p. 464 sq.). I give his results: "In Matthew’s Gospel, the passages verbally coincident with one or both of the other two Gospels amount to less than a sixth part of its contents; and of this about seven-eighths occur in the recital of the words of others, and only about one eighth in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative, in which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, was unrestrained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark, the proportion of coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel is about one-sixth, of which not one-fifth occurs in the narrative. Luke has still less agreement of expression with the other evangelists. The passages in which it is found amount only to about a tenth part of his Gospel; and but an inconsiderable portion of it appears in the narrative, in which there are few instances of its existence for more than half a dozen words together. In the narrative, it may be computed as less than a twentieth part. These definite proportions are important, as showing distinctly in how small a part of each Gospel there is any verbal coincidence with either of the other two; and to how great a degree such coincidence is confined to passages in which the evangelists professedly give the words of others, particularly of Jesus.-The proportions should, however, be further compared with those which the narrative part of each Gospel bears to that in which the words of others are professedly repeated. Matthew’s narrative occupies about one-fourth of his Gospel, Mark’s about one-half, and Luke’s about one-third. It may easily be computed, therefore, that the proportion of verbal coincidence found in the narrative part of each Gospel, compared with what exists in the other part, is about in the following ratios: in Matthew as one to somewhat more than two, in Mark as one to four, and in Luke as one to ten .... We cannot explain this phenomenon by the supposition that the Gospels were transcribed either one from another, or all from common documents; for, if such transcription had been the cause, it would not have produced results so unequal in the different portions into which the Gospels naturally divide themselves."

(16; original 880): Geschichte der heil. Schriften N. Test., I., p. 175 (5th ed., 1874). See also his Histoire Evangelique, Paris, 1876 (Nouveau Testament, I. partie).

(17; original 881): See Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels, p. 191, fifth ed.

(18; original 882): Gesch., etc., I., p. 175, followed by Archbishop Thomson in Speaker’s Com. New Test., vol. I., p. viii.

(19; original 883): See the Literature above. Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, of London, suggested the work, and quotes a specimen (though all in black type) in his art. "Gospels" in the "Encycl. Brit." He draws from it a conclusion favorable to the priority of Mark, from whom, he thinks, Matthew and Luke have borrowed. The specimen is the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Matt. 21:33-44; Luke 20:9-18; Mark 12:1-11.

(20; original 886): The following lines, representing the relative lengths of the three Gospels, show the extent of their verbal coincidence and divergence. The dots divide the lines in half, and the marks into thirds:

Luke, ———— ––——————————

Mark, ———|—•—|———

Matthew, —————•——————

(21; original 887): German scholars have convenient terms for these various hypotheses, as Benützungshypothese ("borrowing" hypothesis), Urevangeliumshypothese, Traditionshypothese, Tendenzhypothese, Combinationshypothese, Diegesentheorie, Markushypothese, Urmarkushypothese, etc. See the Notes (II)at the end of this section.

(22; original 888): Used by recent English writers as a rendering for Benützungshypothese.

(23; original 889): Clement of Alexandria makes no exception, for be merely states (in Euseb. H. E., VI. 14) that those Gospels which contain the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first, Mark next, and John last.

(24; original 890): So Weisse, Ewald, Reuss, Ritschl, Thiersch, Plitt, Meyer, Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, Mangold, Godet, Weis. See Meyer on Matthew, p. 34 (6th ed.), and on Luke, p. 238 (6th ed. by Weiss, 1878). Only the Tübingen "tendency critics" maintain the contrary, and this is almost necessary in order to maintain the late date which they assign to Luke. Had he written in the second or even at the end of the first century, he could not possibly have been ignorant of Matthew. But him very independence proves his early date.

(25; original 891): For the use of Mark by Luke are Reuss, Weiss, and most of the advocates of the Urmarkushypothese. Against such use are Weizsäcker, Godet, and all those who (with Griesbach) make Mark an epitomizer of Matthew and Luke. Farrar also, in his Com. on Luke, p. 9, very decidedly maintains the independence of Luke both on Matthew and Mark: "It may be regarded as certain," he says, "that among these ’attempts’ Luke did not class the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. The inference that he was either unaware of the existence of those Gospels, or made no direct use of them, suggests itself with the utmost force when we place side by side any of the events which they narrate in common, and mark the minute and inexplicable differences which incessantly occur even amid general similarity."

(26; original 892): Compare the healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:3-12, with Matt. 9:2-8 the murder of John the Baptist, Mark 6:14-29, with Matt. 14:1-13; Luke 9:7-9; the healing of the demoniac boy, Mark 9:14-29, with Matt. 17:14-21 and Luke 9:37-43; also the accounts of Peter’s denial.

(27; original 893): I mean especially the works of Wilke (Der Urevangelist, 1838), Holtzmann (Die Synopt. Evang., 1863), and Weiss (Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen, 1872; comp. his Matthäusevangelium, etc., 1876). Weiss deserves all the more a hearing as he strenuously advocates the genuineness of John. See notes at the end of this section. Dr. Fisher thinks that "the independence of Mark as related to the other Gospels is one of the most assured and most valuable results of recent criticism." The Beginnings of Christianity, p. 275. Dr. Davidson in the "revised and improved edition" of his Introduction, Vol. I., 551-563, still adheres to the old Tübingen position of the dependence of Mark upon both Matthew and Luke, and ignores the works of Wilke, Holtzmann, Weiss, Renan, and the article of his own countryman, Abbott, in the "Encycl. Brit."

(28; original 894): Holtzmann, Mangold, E. A. Abbott, and others go back to a fictitious Urmarkus; while Ewald, Meyer, and Weiss make our canonical Mark the basis of Matthew and Luke, yet with the important addition that Mark himself used, besides the oral tradition of Peter, the lost Hebrew Matthew, or rather a Greek translation of it, which was more than a mere collection of discourses (suvntaxi" tw'n logivwn) and embraced also brief narratives. But if Mark had the rich collection of our Lord’s discourses before him, his meagreness in that department is all the more difficult to account for.

(29; original 895): Luke 1:2: kaqw;" parevdosan (handed down by the living word) hJmi'n oiJ ajp j ajrch'" (i.e., from the beginning of the public ministry of Christ; comp. Acts 1:21 sq.; John 15:27) aujtovptai kai; uJphrevtai genovmenoi tou' lovgou (the same persons).

(30; original 896): Hearers and hearing of the gospel are spoken of in many passages, as Matt. 13:14; Luke 7:1; John 12:38; Acts 17:20; Rom. 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; James 1:22, 23, 25. The reading (ajnaginwvskein) is mostly used of the Old Testament: Matt. 12:3, 5; 21:16, 42; 24:15; Mark 25; 12:10, 26; 13:14; Luke 4:16; 6: 3; 10:26; Acts 8:28, 30, 32; 13:27; 15:21, etc.; of the Epistles of Paul: Eph. 3:4; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 6:27; of the book of Revelation: Rev. 1:3; 5:4.

(31; original 897): The rabbinical rule (in Shabb. f. 15, 1) was: "Verba praeceptoris sine ulla immutatione, ut prolata ab illo fuerunt. erant recitanda, ne diversa illi affingeretur sententia."

(32; original 898): Renan, Les Evangiles, p. 96: "La tradition vivante (zw'sa fwnh; kai; mevnousa, Papias) était le grand réservoir où tous puisaient .... Le même phénomène se retrouve, du reste, dans presque toutes les littératures sacrées. Les Védas ont traversé des siècles sans être éerits; un homme qui se respectait devait les savoir par coeur. Celui qui avait besoin d’un manuscrit pour rêciter ces hymnes antiques faisait un aveu d’ignorance; aussi les copies n’en ont-elles jamais été estimées. Citer de mémoire la Bible, le Coran, est encore de nos jours un point d’honneur pour les 0rientaux." Renan thinks that most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Test. are from memory. My own observations, and those of friends residing in the East, confirm the uniformity of oral tradition and the remarkable strength of memory among the Arabs.

(33; original 899): In such conjectures Eichhorn, Marsh, Schleiermacher, Ewald, Volkmar, Wittichen, and Renan have shown great ingenuity, and accumulated a vast amount of docta ignorantia.

(34; original 900): Luke 1:1: polloi; ejpeceivrhsan (indicating the difficulty of the undertaking and probably also the insufficiency of the execution) ajnatavxasqai dihvghsin peri; tw'n peplhroforhmevnwn ejn hJmi'n pragmavtwn.

(35; original 901): In this conclusion (which I stated thirty years ago in the first edition of myHist. of the Ap. Ch.)some of the ablest investigators of the Synoptic problem independently agree, as Lange, Ebrard (Wissenschaftliche Kritik der ev. Gesch., third ed., pp. 1044 sqq.), Norton, Alford, Godet, Westcott, Farrar. "The Synoptic Gospels," says Alford (in his Proleg. to vol. I., p. 11, 6th ed.), contain the substance of the Apostles’ testimony, collected principally from their oral teaching current in the church, partly also from written documents embodying portions of that teaching: there is, however, no reason, from their internal structure, to believe, but every reason to disbelieve that any one of the three evangelists had access to either of the other two gospels in its present form." Godet concludes his discussion (Com. on Luke, 2d ed., p. 556, Am. ed.) with these words: " It is impossible to conceive anything more capricious and less reverential than the part which we make the author of any one whatever of our Synoptic Gospels play with the history and sayings of Jesus, supposing that he had before him the other two, or one of them. Such an explanation will only be allowable when we are brought absolutely to despair of finding any other. And even then it were better still to say, Non liquet. For this explanation involves a moral contradiction. Most of our present critics are so well aware of this that they have recourse to middle terms."

(36; original 902): Irenaeus, III. 1, 1; Origen in Euseb., H. E., VI. 25; Tertullian, and others. Irenaeus gives this order with the approximate data: "Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." Clement of Alexandria differs by putting Mark after Matthew and Luke, and yet before the death of Peter; for he says (in Eus., H. E., VI. 14), that when Peter proclaimed the gospel at Rome, Mark was requested by the hearers to reduce it to writing, which he did, Peter neither hindering nor encouraging it. According to this view all the Synoptists would have written before 64.

(37; original 903): Maqqai'o", Matt. 9:9 (according to the spelling of a B* D, adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), or Matqai'o"(as spelled in the text. rec.), like Matthias and Mattathias, means Gift of Jehovah ( hY;Tim', hy;nÒT'm' , yaTi:m', yT'm' ), and corresponds to the Greek Theodore. He perhaps took this name after his call; his former name being Levi, Leuiv", Leueiv" ( wyIlIi , a joining), according to Mark 2:12; Luke 5:27, 29. The new name overshadowed the old, as the names of Peter and Paul replaced Simon and Saul. The identity is evident from the fact that the call of Matthew or Levi is related by the three Synoptists in the same terms and followed by the same discourse. Nicholson (Com. on Matt. 9:9) disputes the identity, as Grotius and Sieffert did before, but on insufficient grounds. Before Mark 3:16 Peter is called by his former name Simon (Mark 1:16, 29, 30, 36), and thereby shows his historical tact.

(38; original 904): Hence called Maqqai'o" oJ telwvnh" ,Matt. 10:3. He inserts his previous employment to intimate the power of divine grace in his conversion.

(39; original 905): Matt. 10:3, compared with Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15. But in the list in Acts 1:13 he is associated with Bartholomew, and Thomas with Philip.

(40; original 906): Clement of Alexandria represents him as a strict Jewish Christian who abstained from the use of flesh. This would make him one of the weak brethren whom Paul (Rom. 14:1sqq.) charitably judges. But there is nothing in the first Gospel to justify this tradition.

(41; original 907): The priority and relative superiority of Matthew are maintained not only by Augustin and the catholic tradition, but also by moderately liberal critics from Griesbach to Bleek, and even by the radical critics of the Tübingen school (Baur, Strauss, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Davidson), and especially by Keim..

(42; original 908): So Luke 5:29. Mark 2:15 ("many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples") and Matt. 9:10 ("many publicans and sinners") agree; but Matthew modestly omits his own name in connection with that feast. Some commentators understand "the house" to be the house of Jesus, but Jesus had no house and gave no dinner parties. Luke says expressly that it was the house of Levi.

(43; original 909): Carr, Com., p. 6.

(44; original 910): Luke 5:28; Mark 2:14; Matt. 9:9.

(45; original 911): Matt. 5:35 (" Jerusalem is the city of the great king"); 23:1 (sit on Moses’ seat") 23:16 (" swear by the temple"); 16:28; 24:15 (" in the holy place;" " let him that readeth understand"), and the whole twenty-fourth chapter.

(46; original 912): Matt. 5:17; 15:24; comp. 10:6.

(47; original 913): Hug, Bleek, Olshausen, Ebrard, Meyer, Reim, Lange, and most commentators fix the date between 60 and 69, other writers as early as 37-45 (but in conflict with Matt. 27:8; 28:15). Baur’s view, which brings the Greek Matthew down to the second destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, 130-134, is exploded. Even Volkmar puts it much earlier (105 to 115), Hilgenfeld (Einleitung in das N. T., p. 497) immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, Keim a.d. 66. Dr. Samuel Davidson, in the second ed. of his Introd. to the N. T. (London, 1882, vol. I. 413-416), assigns the present Greek Matthew with Volkmar to 105, but assumes an Aramaean original and Greek paraphrases of the same which were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. He thinks that "the eschatological discourses which connect the fail of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and the end of the world, have been falsified by history" (?); that consequently Jesus did not utter them as they are recorded, but they were revised and altered by writers who incorporated with them Jewish ideas and expressions (I. 403).

(48; original 914): Comp. Matt. 15:2 with Mark 7:3, 4. The translation of the exclamation on the cross, Matt. 27:46, is intended for Greek Jews,

(49; original 915): By Godet, Studies on the New Testament, p. 23.

(50; original 916): i{na (or o{pw")plhrwqh'/ to; rjhqevn, ortovte ejplhrwvqh to; rjhqevn. This formula occurs twelve times in Matthew (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17, 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9, 35), six times in John, but nowhere in Luke nor in Mark; for Mark 15:28 (kai; ejplhrwvqh hJ grafh k. t. l.) in the text. rec. is spurious and probably inserted from Luke 22:37.

(51; original 917): Comp. Matt. 2:1-12; 8:11, 12; 11:21; 12:41; 15:21-28; Matt. 23 and 24; 28:19, 20.

(52; original 918): For a full analysis see the critical monograph of Weiss, and Lange’s Matth., pp. 43-46. Keim, who builds his Geschichte Jesu—the ablest and least objectionable of the purely critical biographies of Christ,—chiefly on Matthew, praises its plan as sorgfältig, einfach und einleuchtend, durchsichtig und sehr wohl durchgeführt (I. 52). He divides it into two chief sections: the entry upon the public ministry with the Bussruf and Reichspredigt (4:17: apo; tovte h[rxato oJ jIhsou'" khruvssein, k. t. l.), and the entry upon the path of death with the Leidensruf and the Zukunftspredigt (Matt16:21: ajpo tovte h[rxato oJ jIh"., k. t. l.). He also finds an ingenious symmetry of numbers in the collocation of 10 miracles, 8 [7] beatitudes, 7 woes, 4 and 3 parables, 3 temptations, etc.

(53; original 919): For particulars on the style of Matthew and the other Evangelists see my Companion to the Study of the Greek Testament (third ed., 1888), pp. 43 sqq.

(54; original 920): See my book on the Didache (N. York, third ed., 1889), pp. 61-88.

(55; original 921): Ep. Barn., c. 4, at the close:prosevcwmen, mhvpote, wJ" gevgraptai, polloi; klhtoiv, ojlivgoi de; ejklektoi; euJreqw'men. Since the discovery of the entire Greek text of this Epistle in the Codex Sinaiticus (1859), where it follows the Apocalypse, there can be no doubt any more about the formula gevgraptai(scriptum est). The other passage quoted in Matt. 5 is from Matt. 9:13: oujk h|lqen kalevsai dikaivou" ajllav aJmartwlouv". The Ep. of Barnabas dates from the close of the first or the beginning of the second century. Some place it as early as a.d. 70, others an late as 120. The Didache is older.

(56; original 922): Euseb., H. E., III. 39: jIwavnnou me;n ajkousthv",Polukavrpou de; eJtai'ro" gegonwv".. Whether this " John" is the apostle or the mysterious " Presbyter John," is a matter of dispute which will be discussed in the second volume in the section on Papias. Eusebius himself clearly distinguishes two Johns. The date of Papias must be set back several years with that of Polycarp, his " companion," who suffered martyrdom in 155 (not 164). The Chronicon Paschale which represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about the same time, mistook PAPULOS in Eusebius, H. E., IV. 15 (at the close), for PAPIAS. See Lightfoot, " Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, p. 381 sqq.

(57; original 923): Eus., Hist. Eccl., III. 39: Matqai'o" me;n ou|n JEbraivdi dialekvtw/ ta; lovgia sunatavxato (or, according to the reading of Heinichen, I. 150, sunagravyato), hjrmhvneuse d j aujta; wJ" h{n dunato;" e{kasto" . This testimony has been thoroughly discussed by Schleiermacher (in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1832), Holtzmann (Synopt. Evang., 248 sqq.), Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen üb. d. ev. Gesch., 27 sqq.). Ewald (Jahrbücher, VI., 55 sqq.), Zahn (in "Stud. u. Kritiken," 1866, 649 sqq.), Steitz (ibid., 1868, 63 sqq.), Keim (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., I., 56 sqq.), Meyer (Com. Evang. Matth., 6th ed. (1876), 4 sqq.), Lightfoot (in "Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, pp. 396-403), and Weiss (Das Matthäusevang., 1876, 1 sqq.).

(58; original 924): So Schleiermacher who first critically examined this passage (1832), Schneckenbarger (1834), Lachmann (1835), Credner, Wieseler. Ewald, Reuss, Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, Meyer (p. 11). It is supposed that Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel was similar to the lost work of Papias, with this difference that the former was simply a collection (suvntaxi" or suggrafhv), the latter an interpretation (ejxhvghsi"), of the Lord’s discourses (tw'n logivwn kuriakw'n).

(59; original 925): So Lücke (1833), Kern, Hug, Harless, Anger, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Ebrard, Thiersch, Keim, Zahn, Lightfoot, Thomson, Keil, Weiss (but the last with a limitation to a meagre thread of narrative). The chief arguments are: 1, that all early writers, from Irenaeus onward, who speak of a Hebrew Matthew mean a regular Gospel corresponding to our Greek Matthew; 2, the parallel passage of Papias concerning the Gospel of Mark (Eus., III. 39), where apparently "the Lord’s discourses" (lovgoi kuriakoiv) includes actions as well as words. ta; uJpo; tou' Cristou' h{ lecqevnta h{ pracqevnta. But it is said somewhat disparagingly, that Mark (as compared with Matthew) did not give "an orderly arrangement of the Lord’s words" (oujc w{sper suvntaxin tw'n kuriakw'n poiouvmeno" lovgwn). The wider meaning of logiva is supported by Rom. 3:1, where ta; logiva tou' qeou', with which the Jews were intrusted, includes the whole Old Testament Scriptures; and Hebr. 5:12, " the first principles of the oracles of God". (ta; stoicei'a th'" ajrch'" tw'n logiwn tou' qeou'). Lightfoot quotes also passages from Philo, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Origen (l.c., p. 400 sq.).

(60; original 926): So Wetstein, Hug, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann, Keim, Delitzsch, Keil. Some of these writers assume that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was an Ebionite translation and recension of the Greek Matthew. So Delitzsch and Keil (Com. p. 23). Keim is mistaken when he asserts (I. 54) that scarcely anybody nowadays believes in a Hebrew Matthew. The contrary opinion is defended by Meyer, Weiss, and others, and prevails among English divines.

(61; original 927): Eusebius (III. 39) calls him sfovdra smikro;" to;n nou'n, " very narrow-minded," but on account of his millenarianism, as the context shows. In another place he calls him a man of comprehensive learning and great knowledge of the Scriptures (III. 39: ta; tavnta mavlista logiwvtato" kai; th'" grafh'" eijdhvmwn ).

(62; original 928): Adv. Haer., III1, 1: oJ men; dh; Matqai'o" ejn toi's jEbraivoi" th' ijdiva/ dialevktw/ aujtw'n kai; grafh;n ejxhvnegken eujaggelivou, tou' Pevtrou kai; Pauvlou ejn JR wvmh eujaggelizomevnwn kai; qemeliouvntwn th;n ejkklhsivan. The chronological reference is so far inaccurate, as neither Peter nor Paul were personally the founders of the church of Rome, yet it was founded through their influence and their pupils, and consolidated by their presence and martyrdom.

(63; original 929): He is reported by Eus., H.E. 10, to have found in India (probably in Southern Arabia) the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew (JEbraivwn gravmmasi), which had been left there by Bartholomew, one of the apostles. This testimony is certainly independent of Papias. But it may be questioned whether a Hebrew original, or a Hebrew translation, is meant.

(64; original 930): In Eus., H. E., VI. 25. Origen, however, drew his report of a Hebrew Matthew not from personal knowledge, but from tradition (wJ" ejn paradovsei maqwvn).

(65; original 931): H. E., III. 24: Matqai'o" me;n ga;r provteron JEbraivoi" khruvxa", wJ" e[melle kai; ef j eJtevrou" ijevnai, patrivw/ glwvtth/ grafh'/ paradou;" to; kat j aujto;n euvaggevlion, to; lei'pon th'/ aujtou' parousiva/ touvtoi", ajf j w|n ejstevlleto, dia; th'" : grafh'" ajpeplhvrou. " M., having first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his book."

(66; original 932): Catech. 14: Matq. oJ gravya" to; eujaggevlion JEbraiv�di glwvssh/.

(67; original 933): Haer., XXX. 3; comp. LI. 5.

(68; original 934): Praef. in Matth.; on Matt. 12:13; Dial. c Pelag., III, c. 2; De Vir. illustr., c. 2 and 3. Jerome’s testimony is somewhat conflicting. He received a copy of the Hebrew M. from the Nazarenes in Beraea in Syria for transcription (392). But afterward (415) he seems to have found out that the supposed Hebrew Matthew in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea was "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Evangelium juxta, or secundum Hebraeos), which he translated both into Greek and Latin (De vir. ill., c. 2). This would have been useless, if the Hebrew Gospel had been only the original of the canonical Matthew. See Weiss, l.c., pp. 7 sq.

(69; original 935): The fragments of this Gospel ("quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae," Jerome) were collected by Credner, Beiträge, I. 380 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec., IV., and especially by Nicholson in the work quoted above. It is far superior to the other apocryphal Gospels, and was so much like the Hebrew Matthew that many confounded it with the same, as Jerome observes, ad Matth. 12:13 ("quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum") and C. Pelag., III. 2. The Tübingen view (Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld) reverses the natural order and makes this heretical gospel the Urmatthaeus (proto-Matthew), of which our Greek Matthew is an orthodox transformation made as late as 130; but Keim (I., 29 sqq.), Meyer (p. 19), and Weise (pp. 8 and 9) have sufficiently refuted this hypothesis. Nicholson modifies the Tübingen theory by assuming that Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and those portions of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which run parallel with it.

(70; original 936): See Holtzmann, p. 269, and Ewald’s "Jahrbücher," IX. 69 sqq.

(71; original 937): So Meyer (p. 12, against Holtzmann), and Lightfoot (p. 397 against the author of "Supern. Rel."). Schleiermacher was wrong in referring hJrmhvneuse to narrative additions.

(72; original 938): Matt. 21:41: kakouv" kakw'" ajpolevsei, pessimos pessime (or malos male) perdet. The E. Revision reproduces the paronomasis (which is obliterated in the E. V.) thus: "He will miserably destroy those miserable men." Other plays on words: Pevtro" and pevtra, 16:18; battologei'n and polulogiva, 6:7; ajfanivzousin o{pw" fanw'si, "they make their faces unappearable (disfigure them), that they may appear,"6:16; comp. 24:7. Weiss derives the originality of the Greek Matthew from the use of the Greek Mark; but this would not account for these and similar passages.

(73; original 939): Jerome first observed that Matthew follows not Septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam (De vir. illustr., c. 3). Credner and Bleek brought out this important difference more fully, and Holtzmann (Die Syn. Evang., p. 259), Ritschl, Köstlin, Keim (I., 59 sqq), Meyer (p. 9), and Weiss (p. 44) confirm it. But Hilgenfeld and Keim unnecessarily see in this fact an indication of a later editor, who exists only in their critical fancy.

(74; original 940): Jerome acknowledges the uncertainty of the translator, De vir. ill., c. 3: Quis postea in Graecum transtulerit [the Hebrew Matthew], non satis certum est." It has been variously traced to James, the brother of the Lord Synops. Pseudo-Athan.), to a disciple of Matthew, or to another disciple.

(75; original 941): So Bengel, Guericke, Schott, Olshausen, Thiersch.

(76; original 942): Meyer and Weiss regard the reports of the resurrection of the dead at the crucifixion and the story of the watch, Matt. 27:52, 62-66, as post-apostolic legends; but the former is not more difficult than the resurrection of Lazarus, and the latter has all the marks of intrinsic probability. Meyer also gratuitously assumes that Matthew must be corrected from John on the date of the crucifixion; but there is no real contradiction between the Synoptic and the Johannean date. See p. 133. Meyer’s opinion is that Matthew wrote only a Hebrew collection of the discourses of our Lord, that an unknown hand at an early date added the narrative portions, and another anonymous writer, before the year 70, made the Greek translation which was universally and justly, as far as substance is concerned, regarded as Matthew’s work (pp. 14, 23). But these are an pure conjectures.

(77; original 943): Marcus, and the diminutive Marcellus (Little Mallet), are well known Roman names. Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote an oration pro Marco Marcello.

(78; original 944): Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13.

(79; original 945): There is no good reason for taking "son" here literally (with Credner), when the figurative meaning so fully harmonizes with Scripture usage and with what we otherwise certainly know of Mark’s intimate relations to Peter both from the Acts and from tradition. A daughter of Peter (Petronilla) is mentioned by tradition, but not a son. Clement of Alexandria says that Peter and Philip begat children."

(80; original 946): ajneyiov", Col. 4:10.

(81; original 947): ejmnhmovneuse. It is so translated by Valois, Lardner, Meyer, Weiss, Lightfoot. The rendering "recorded," which is preferred by Crusé and Morison, makes it tautological with the preceding e[grayen. The "he" may be referred to Mark or to Peter, probably to the former.

(82; original 948): ajll j oujc w{sper suvntaxin tw'n kuriakw'n lovgwn(orlogivwn, oracles).

(83; original 949): Euseb., Hist, Eccl., III. 39. For a critical discussion of this important testimony see Weiss and Morison, also Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev.," vol. XXVI. (1875), pp. 393 sqq. There is not the slightest evidence for referring this description to a fictitious pre-canonical Mark, as is still done by Davidson (new ed., I. 539).

(84; original 950): The Latin was provincial, the Greek universal in the Roman empire. Cicero (Pro Arch., 10): "Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus; Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur." The tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel first in Latin is too late to deserve any credit. Baronius defends it in the interest of the Vulgate, and puts the composition back to the year 45. The supposed Latin autograph of Mark’s Gospel at Venice is a fragment of the Vulgate.

(85; original 951): Justin Martyr (Dial.c. Tryph., c. 106) actually quotes from the "Memoirs (ajpomnemoneuvmata) of Peter" the designation of the sons of Zebedee, "Boanerges" or "Sons of Thunder;" but he evidently refers to the written Gospel of Mark, who alone mentions this fact, Mark 3:17.

(86; original 952): See the testimonies of Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Papias, well presented in Kirchhofer (ed. Charteris) on Canonicity, pp. 141-150, and in Morison’s Com., pp. xx-xxxiv

(87; original 953): Mark 16:19: "The Lord Jesus ... was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God;" comp. 1 Pet, 3:22: "who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven."

(88; original 954): Mark 8:27-33; compared with Matt. 16:13-33.

(89; original 955): Dem. Evang., III. 5, quoted by Morison, p. xxxv. In view of the facts quoted above the reader may judge of Dr. Davidson’s assertion (Introd. 1882 vol. I., 541): "That Mark was not the writer of the canonnical Gospel may be inferred from the fact that it is not specially remarkable in particulars relative to Peter."

(90; original 956): Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III. 1) says "after the departure" of Peter and Paul, "post horum excessum," or in the original Greek preserved by Eusebius (H. E., V. 8. ed. Heinichen, 1. 224), meta; th;n touvtwn e[xodon. This must mean "after their decease," not "after their departure from Rome" (Grabe). But Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Jerome, and other fathers assign the composition to a time before the martyrdom of Peter. Christophorson (in his Latin Version of the Church History of Eusebius, publ. 1570, as quoted by Stieren in Iren. Op., I. 423, note 4) suggested a different reading, meta; th;n e[kdosin, i.e., after the publication of Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, as spoken of in the preceding sentence, and Morison (p. xxv) seems inclined to accept this conjecture. Very unlikely; all the MSS., Rufinus and the Latin translator of Irenaeus read e[xodon. See Stieren, in loc. The conflicting statements can be easily harmonized by a distinction between the composition before, and the publication after, the death of Peter. By publication in those days was meant the copying and distribution of a book.

(91; original 957): Acts 10:38. The sermon of Peter to Cornelius is the Gospel of Mark in a nutshell.

(92; original 958): Lange (Com., p. 2): "Mark delineates Christ as, from first to last, preeminently the victorious conqueror of all Satanic powers. He has left us a record of the manifestation of Christ’s power when that great Lion seized upon the ancient world, and of his brief but decisive victory, after which only the ruins of the ancient world are left, which in turn furnish the materials for the new one." Thomson (Speaker’s Com., Introd. to Gospels, p. xxxv): "The wonder-working son of God sweeps over his kingdom, swiftly and meteor-like: and men are to wonder and adore. His course is sometimes represented as abrupt, mysterious, awful to the disciples: He leaves them at night; conceals himself from them on a journey. The disciples are amazed and afraid (Mark 10:24, 32). And the Evangelist means the same impression of awe to be imparted to the reader."

(93; original 959): The reading of the textus rec. uiJou' (tou') qeou' in Mark 1:1 is sustained by a ABDL, nearly all the cursives, and retained by Lachmann and Tregelles in the text, by Westcott and Hort in the margin. Tischendorf omitted it in his 8th ed. on the strength of his favorite a*(in its original form), and Origen. Irenaeus has both readings. The term occurs seven times in Mark, and is especially appropriate at the beginning of his Gospel and a part of its very title.

(94; original 960): Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:1-4; 12:18; 15:6, 35.

(95; original 961): See Lange’s Analysis of Mark, Com., pp. 12-14; also his Bibelkunde, pp. 185-187. Lange discovered many characteristic features of the Gospels, which have passed without acknowledgment into many other books.

(96; original 962): As asserted by Baur, Schwegler, Köstlin, and quite recently again by Dr. Davidson, who says (I. 505): "The colorless neutrality of the Gospel was an important factor in conciliating antagonistic parties." Dr. Morison (p. xlvi) well remarks against this Tübingen tendency criticism: "There is not so much as a straw of evidence that the Gospel of Mark occupied a position of mediation, or irenic neutrality, in relation to the other two Synoptic Gospels. It is in the mere wantonness of a creative imagination that its penman is depicted as warily steering his critical bark between some Scylla in St. Matthew’s representations and some Charybdis in St. Luke’s. There is no Scylla in the representations of St. Matthew. It must be invented if suspected. There is no Charybdis in the representations of St. Luke. Neither is there any indication in St. Mark of wary steering, or of some latent aim of destination kept, like sealed orders, under lock and key. There is, in all the Gospels, perfect transparency and simplicity, ’the simplicity that is in Christ.’"

(97; original 963): Ewald characterizes Mark’s style as the Schmelz der frischen Blume, as the volle, reine Leben der Stoffe, Kahnis as drastisch and frappant, Meyer as malerisch anschaulich. Lange speaks of the "enthusiasm and vividness of realization which accounts for the brevity, rapidity, and somewhat dramatic tone of the narrative, and the introduction of details which give life to the scene."

(98; original 964): kh'nso" (census), kenturivwn(centurio),xevsth"(sextarius),spekoulavtwp(speculator), and the Latinizing phrases to; iJkanovn poiei''n(satisfacere, Mark 15:15), ejscavtw" e[cei, (in extremis esse), sumbouvlion didovnai (consilium dare). Mark even uses the Roman names of coins instead of the Greek, kodravnth"(quadrans, 12:42).

(99; original 965): eujqevw" or eujquv" occurs (according to Bruder’s Concord.)forty-one times in the Gospel of Mark, nearly as often as in all other New Test. writings combined. But there are some variations in reading. Codex D omits it in several passages. The English Version, by its inexcusable love of variations, obliterates many characteristic features of the sacred writers. This very particle is translated in no less than seven different ways: straightway, immediately, forthwith, as soon as, by and by, shortly, and anon.

(100; original 966): Mark 3:17; 5:41 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:34.

(101; original 967): Mark 1:21, 40, 44 2:3, 10, 17; 11:1; 14:43, 66.

(102; original 968): Mark 4:39; 5:8, 9, 12; 6:23, 31; 9:25; 12:6.

(103; original 969): Such as ajnablevyai, ejmblevya", peribleyavmeno" , ajnaphdhvsa", kuvya" , ejmbrimhsavmeno", ejpistrafeiv" ajpostenavxa".

(104; original 970): As paidivon, koravsion, kunavrion, qugavtrion, ivcquvdion, wjtavrion.

(105; original 971): Time: Mark 1:35; 2:1; 4:35; 6:2; 11:11, 19; 15:25; 16:2. Place: 2:1; 5:20; 7:31; 12:41; 13:3; 14:68; 15:39; 16:5.

(106; original 972): Asajgreuvein, a[lalo", ajlektorofwniva, gnafeuv" , ekqambei'sqai, ejnagkalivzesqai, ejxavpina, ejneilevw, ejxoudenovw, e[nnucon, mogilavlo", prasiai; prasiaiv, prosavbbaton, promerimna'n, prosormivzesqai, sunqlivbein, thlaugw'" , uJpolhvnion, and others.

(107; original 973): Mark 1:22, 27; 2:12; 4:41; 6:2, 51; 10:24, 26, 32.

(108; original 974): Mark 3:10, 20, 32; 4:1; 5:21, 31; 6:31, 33.

(109; original 975): Mark 6:34: "he had compassion on them;" 6:6: "he marvelled because of their unbelief" (as he marvelled also at the great faith of the heathen centurion, Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:8); Mark 3:5: "when he had looked round about them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart;" 8:12: "he sighed deeply in his spirit;" 10:14: "he was moved with indignation," or "was much displeased" with the conduct of the disciples.

(110; original 976): Mark 1:31; 3:5, 34; 5:32; 7:33, 34; 8:12, 33 ("but he, turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter") 9:35; 10:23, 32; 11:11.

(111; original 977): Mark 4:38; 6:31; 11:12.

(112; original 978): Mark 10:21, 22: ejmblevya" aujtw'/ hJgavphsen aujtovn. This must be taken in its natural meaning and not weakened into " kissed him," or " spoke kindly to him," or " pitied him." Our Saviour, says Morison, in l., " would discern in the young man not a little that was really amiable, the result of the partial reception and reflection of gracious Divine influences. There was ingenuousness, for instance, and moral earnestness. There was restraint of the animal passions, and an aspiration of the spirit toward the things of the world to come."

(113; original 979): Mark 9:21-25. Comp. Matt. 17:14-18; Luke 9:37-42.

(114; original 980): Mark 9:36; 10:16; comp. with Matt 18:2; 19:13; and Luke 9:48; 18:16.

(115; original 981): By Augustin, Griesbach, De Wette, Bleek, Baur, Davidson.

(116; original 982): As C. H. Weisse, Wilke, Ewald, Lange, Holtzmann, Bernhard Weiss, Westcott, Abbott, Morison. See § 79, this vol.

(117; original 983): Jerome wrote to Hedibia, a pious lady in Gaul (Ep. CXX c. 10, in Opera, ed. Migne, I. 1002): "Habebat ergo [Paulus] Titum interpretem; sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante (not dictante), et illo [Marco]scribente, compositum est." This letter was written in 406 or 407, from Bethlehem. Morison (p. xxxvii): "If we assume the Patristic tradition regarding St. Peter’s relation to St. Mark, we find the contents and texture of the Gospel to be without a jar at any point, in perfect accord with the idea."

(118; original 984): So James Smith in his Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels, and again in the Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, prefixed to the fourth ed. of his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (1880), pp. 29 sqq.

(119; original 985): "In substance and style and treatment, the Gospel of St, Mark is essentially a transcript from life. The course and the issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest outline. If all other arguments against the mythic origin of the Evangelic narratives were wanting, this vivid and simple record, stamped with the most distinct impress of independence and originality,—totally unconnected with the symbolism of the Old Dispensation, totally independent of the deeper reasonings of the New,—would be sufficient to refute a theory subversive of all faith in history. The details which were originally addressed to the vigorous intelligence of Roman bearers are still pregnant with instruction for us. The teaching which ’met their wants’ in the first age, finds a corresponding field for its action now." Westcott, l.c., 369 (Am. ed.).

(120; original 986): Mark 16:16 oJ pisteuvsa" kai; baptisqei;" swqhvsetai, oJ de; ajpisthvsa" katakriqhvsetai. This declaration takes the place of the command to baptize, Matt. 28:19. It applies only to converted believers (oJ pisteuvsa"), not to children who are incapable of an act of faith or unbelief, and yet are included in the covenant blessing of Christian parents (comp. 1 Cor. 7:14). Hence it is only positive unbelief which condemns, whether with or without baptism; while faith saves with baptism, ordinarily, but exceptionally also without baptism. Else we should have to condemn the penitent thief, the Quakers, and all unbaptized infants. St. Augustin derived from this passage and from John 3:5 (ejx u{dato") the doctrine of the absolute and universal necessity of water-baptism for salvation; and hence the further (logical, but not theological inference drawn by the great and good bishop of Hippo, with reluctant heart, that all unbaptized infants dying in infancy are forever damned (or, at least, excluded from heaven), simply on account of Adam’s sin, before they were capable of committing an actual transgression. This is the doctrine of the Roman Church to this day. Some Calvinistic divines in the seventeenth century held the same view with regard to reprobate infants (if there be such), but allowed an indefinite extension of the number of elect infants beyond the confines of Christendom. Zwingli held that all infants dying in infancy are saved. Fortunately the Saviour of mankind has condemned the dogma horribile of infant damnation by his own conduct toward (unbaptized) children, and his express declaration that to them belongs the kingdom of heaven, and that our heavenly Father does not wish any of them to perish. Matt. 18:2-6; 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17. In the light of these passages we must explain John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, which have been so grossly misunderstood.

(121; original 987): glwvssai" lalhvsousin kainai'" .Tischendorf retains kainai'"_ Tregelles, Westcott and Hort put it in the margin, as it is omitted in several uncials and ancient versions.

(122; original 988): Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome erroneously supposed that Paul meant the written Gospel of Luke when he speaks of "my gospel," Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8. The word gospel is not used in the New Test. in the sense of a written record, except in the titles which are of post-apostolic date; and the preface of Luke is inconsistent with the idea that he composed his work under the direction of any one man.

(123; original 989): The name Louka'",Lucas, is abridged from lukanov" .Lucanus or Lucilius (as Apollos from Apollonius, Silas from Silvanus). It is not to be confounded with Lucius, Acts 13:1; Rom. 16:21. The name was not common, but contractions in as were frequent in the names of slaves, as Lobeck observes. Dr. Plumptre (in his Com.)ingeniously conjectures that Luke was from the region of Lucania in Southern Italy, and called after the famous poet, M. Annaeus Lucanus, as his freedman. In this way be accounts for Luke’s familiarity with Italian localities (Acts 28:13-15), the favor of the uncle of Lucanus, J. Annaeus Gallic, shown to Paul (18:14-17), the tradition of the friendship between Paul and Seneca (a brother of Gallio), and the intended journey of Paul to Spain (Rom. 15:28), where Seneca and Lucanus were born (at Corduba). But the chronology is against this hypothesis. Lucanus was born a.d. 39, when Luke must have been already about thirty years of age, as he cannot have been much younger than Paul.

(124; original 990): Jerome (Ep. ad Paulinum) says of Luke "Fuit medicus, et pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis sunt medicinae."

(125; original 991): Comp. Gal. 4:13; 2 Cor. 1:9; 4:10, 12, 16; 12:7.

(126; original 992): He is distinguished from "those of the circumcision," Col. 4:14; comp. 4:11.

(127; original 993): Eusebius, III. 4: Louka'" to; me;n gevno" w{n tw'n ajp J jAntioceiva", th;n ejpisthvmhn de; ijatrov" , k. t. l. Jerome, De vir. ill, 7: "Lucas medicus Antiochensis ... sectator apostoli Pauli, et omnis peregrinationis ejus comes.

(128; original 994): James Smith (l.c., p. 4) illustrates the argumentative bearing of this notice by the fact that of eight accounts of the Russian campaign of 1812, three by French, three by English, and two by scotch authors (Scott and Alison), the last two only make mention of the Scotch extraction of the Russian General Barclay de Tolly.

(129; original 995): Jerome, De vir. ill., 7: "Sepultus est Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa eius cum reliquiis Andreae apostoli translata sunt."

(130; original 996): Hence the ancient tradition that he was one of the Seventy Disciples, or one of the two disciples of Emmaus, cannot be true.

(131; original 997): As the account of the stilling of the tempest, Luke 8:22-25, compared with Mark 4:35-41; and the parable of the wicked husbandman, Luke 20:9-19, compared with Mark 12:1-12.

(132; original 998): Luke1:3: pa'si"—ajkribw'"—kaqexh'". Says Godet " Matthew groups together doctrinal teachings in the form of great discourses; he is a preacher. Mark narrates events as they occur to his mind; he is a chronicler. Luke reproduces the external and internal development of events; he is the historian, properly so called."

(133; original 999): Luke 1:4: kravtiste Qeovfile. In Acts 1:1 the epithet is omitted. Bengel infers from this omission that when Luke wrote the Acts he was on more familiar terms with Theophilus. The same title is applied to Governors Felix and Festus, Acts 23:26; 24:3; 20:25. The A. V. varies between "most excellent" and "most noble;" the R. V. uniformly renders "most excellent," which is apt to be applied to moral character rather than social position. "Honorable" or "most noble" would be preferable. Occasionally, however, the term is used also towards a personal friend (see passages in Wetstein).

(134; original 1000): For other conjectures on Theophilus, which locate him at Alexandria or at Rome or somewhere in Greece, see the Bible Dicts. of Winer and Smith sub Theophilus. Some have fancied that he was merely an ideal name for every right-minded reader of the Gospel, as a lover of truth.

(135; original 1001): Luke 1:4: i{na ejpignw'/" peri; wkathchvqh" th;n ajsfavleian.

(136; original 1002): Luke 1:26; 4:31; 23:51; 24: 13 (Acts 1:12).

(137; original 1003): For a full analysis of contents see Van Oosterzee, Com., 8-10; Westcott, Introd. to the G., 370-372 (Am. ed.); McClellan, Com. on N. T., I. 425-438; Farrar, Com., 31-36; Lange, Bibelkunde, 187-193.

(138; original 1004): Lange (Leben Jesu, I. 258) gives as the theme of Luke: "the revelation of divine mercy;" Godet (Com.) "the manifestation of divine philanthropy" (Tit. 3:4); McClellan (I. 436): "salvation of sinners, by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, and him crucified;" Farrar (p. 17): "who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38, better suited for Mark); Van Oosterzee: "as Paul led the people of the Lord out of the bondage of the law into the enjoyment of gospel liberty, so did Luke raise sacred history from the standpoint of the Israelitish nationality to the higher and holier ground of universal humanity." .

(139; original 1005): The term swthvr occurs, Luke 1: 47; 2:11; John 4:42, and often in the Acts and the Epistles of Paul, but neither in Matthew nor Mark; swthriva occurs, Luke 1:69, 77; 19:9; John 4:22, and repeatedly in the Acts and the Epistles; swthvrio",Luke 2:30; 3:6; Acts 28:28; Eph. 6: 17; Tit. 2:11

(140; original 1006): Luke 4:25-27; 9:52-56; 10:33; 15:11 sqq.; 17:19; 18:10; 19:5.

(141; original 1007): See § 80, this vol.

(142; original 1008): Lange (Bibelkunde, p. 187) calls it "das Evangelium des Menschensohnes, der Humanität Christi, der Verklärung aller Humanität."

(143; original 1009): Farrar (p. 23) calls Luke "the first Christian hymnologist" (better hymnist), and quotes the lines from Keble:

"Thou hast an ear for angel songs,

A breath the gospel trump to fill,

And taught by thee the Church prolongs

Her hymns of high thanksgiving still."

(144; original 1010): This is the judgment of Renan, which is worth preserving in full. "L’Evangile de Luc," he says (in Les Evangiles, p. 282 and 283), "est le plus littéraire des évangiles. Tout y révèle un esprit large et doux, sage, modéré, sobre et raisonnable dans l’irrationnel. Ses exagérations, ses invraisemblances, ses inconséquences tiennent à la nature même de la parabole et en font le charme. Matthieu arrondit les contours un peu secs de Marc. Luc fait bien plus;il écrit, il montre une vraie entente de la composition. Son livre est un beau récit bien suivi, à la fois hébraîque et hellénique, joignant l’émotion du drama à la sérènité de l’idylle. Tout y rit, tout y pleure, tout y chante; partout des larmes et des cantiques; c’est l’hymne du peuple nouveau, L’hosanna des petits et des humbles introduits dans le royaume de Dieu. Un esprit de sainte enfance, de joie, de ferveur, le sentiment évangélique dans son originalité première répandent sur toute la légende une teinte d’une incomparable douceur. On ne fut jamais moins sectaire. Pas un reproche, pas un mot dur pour le vieux peuple exclu; son exclusion ne le punit-elle pas assez ? C’est le plus beau livre qu’il y ait. Le plaisir que l’auteur dut avoir à l’écrire ne sera jamais suffisamment compris."

(145; original 1011): Jerome, who had a great genius for language, says, Epist. ad Dam., 20 (145): "Lucas qui inter omnes evangelistas Graeci sermonis eruditissimus fuit, quippe et medicus, et qui Evangelium Graecis scripserit." in another passage he says that Luke’s "sermo saecularem redolet eloqueiatiam."

(146; original 1012): See the Version of Delitzsch in his Hebrew New Testament, published by the Brit. and For. Bible Society.

(147; original 1013): Luke 4:38: h|n sunecomevnh puretw/' megavlw/. sunecomevnhis likewise a medical term.

(148; original 1014): Acts 28:8: puretoi'" kai; dusenterivw/ sunecovmenon. Other instances of medical knowledge are found in Luke 8:46; 22:44; Acts 3:7; 9:18; 10:9, 10. Dr. Plumptre even traces several expressions of Paul such as "healthy doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10; 6 3), " gangrene" or " cancer" (2 Tim. 2:17), the conscience " seared," or rather " cauterized"(1 Tim. 4:2), and the recommendation of a little wine for the stomach’s sake (1 Tim. 5:23), to the influence of " the beloved physician," who administered to him in his peculiar physical infirmities. Rather fanciful. Rev. W. K. Hobart, of Trinity College, Dublin, published a work (1882) on The Medical Language of St. Luke, in which he furnished the proof from internal evidence that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person, and that the writer was a medical man. He has compared over four hundred peculiar words and phrases of these books with the use of the same words in Hippocrates, Aretaeus, Dioscorides, and Galen.

(149; original 1015): Among these are seven compounds of plevw, describing the motion and management of a ship, as follows: plevw, to sail, Luke 8:23; Acts 21:3; 27:6, 24. ajpoplevw, to sail from, Acts 13:4; 14:26; 20:15; 27:1.braduploevw (from braduv", slow), to sail slowly, Acts 27:7. diaplevw, to sail through (not " over," as in the A. V.), Acts 27:5. ekplevw, to sail away, Acts 15:39; 18:18; 20:6. kataplevw, to arrive, Luke 8:26. uJpoplevw, to sail under the lee, Acts 27:4, 7. paraplevw, to sail by, Acts 20:16. Add to these the following nautical terms: aJnavgomai, to get under way, to put to sea, Acts 27:4. diaperavw to sail over, Acts 21:2. diafevromai, to be driven to and fro, Acts 27:27. ejpikevllw, to run the ship ashore, Acts 27:41. eujqudromevw, to make a straight course, Acts 16:11; 21:1. paralevgomai (middle), to sail by, Acts 27:8, 13. uJpotrevcw (aor. 2, uJpevdramon), to run under the lee, Acts 27:16. fevromai (pass.), to be driven, Acts 27:15, 17. Also, ejkbolh;n ejpoiou'nto, Acts 27:18, and ejkouvfizon to; ploi'on, 27:38, which are technical terms for lightening the ship by throwing cargo overboard.

(150; original 1016): See James Smith, i.e., and Schaff’s Companion to the Gr. Test., pp.57-61.

(151; original 1017): As carav, Luke 1:14; 2:10; 8:13; 10:17; 15:7, 10; 24:41, 51.

(152; original 1018): pneu'ma a{gion or pneu'ma alone, Luke 1:15, 34, 35, 41, 67; 2:25, 26, 27; 3:16, 22, 4:1, 14, 18; 12:10, 12; and still more frequently in the Acts, which is the Gospel of the Holy Spirit.

(153; original 1019): See Holtzmann, Syn. Evang., pp. 316-324, copied in part (without acknowledgment) by Davidson, Introd., I. 437 sqq. Holtzmann enumerates about two hundred expressions or phrases common to Luke and Paul, and more or less foreign to the other writers of the New Testament.

(154; original 1020): As cavri", e[leo" , pivsti", dikaiosuvnh, divkaio" , a[gion, gnw'si", duvnami" kurivou.

(155; original 1021): As ajgnoei'n, ajdikiva, ajqetei'n, aijcmalwtivzein, ajnapevmpein, ajntapokrivnesqai, ajntikeivmeno", ajntilambavnesqai, ajpelpivzein, ajpologei'sqai, ajtenivzein, ejkdiwvkein, ejpifaivnein, eujgenhv" , hjcei'n, katargei'n, kinduneuvein, kurieuvein, panopliva,paravdeiso", sugcaivrein, suneudokei'n, uJstevrhma, carivzesqai, yalmov" also the particlesajll J oujdev, eij kaiv, eij mhvti, tiv" ou.The word kuvrio"as a substitute for Jesus occurs fourteen times in Luke and often in the Epistles, but only once in the Synoptists (the closing verses of Mark, 16:19, 20).

(156; original 1022): Take the following specimens of striking parallelism (quoted by Holtzmann, 322):

Luke

Paul

6:48:e[qhken qemevlion ejpi; th;n pevtran

1 Cor. 3:10: wj" sofo;" ajpcitevktwn qemevlion e[qhka

8:15: karpoforou'sin uJpomonh'/.

Col. 1:10, 11: karpoforou'nte" kai; aujxanovmenoi eij" pa'san uJpomonhvn.

9:56: oujk hyuca;" ajnqrwvpwn ajpolevsai, ajlla; sw'sai.

2 Cor. 10:8:; [Edwken eij" oijkodomh;n kai; oujk eij" kaqaivresin. 13:10.

10:8:ejsqivete ta; paratiqevmena uJmi'n.

1 Cor. 10:27: pa'n to; paratiqevmenon uJmi'n ejsqivete.

10:20: ta; ojnovmata uJmw'n ejgravfh ejn toi'" oujranoi'"

Phil. 4:3: w|n ta; ojnovmata ejn Bivblw/ zwh'".

10:21: ajpevkruya" tau'ta ajpo; sofw'n kai; sunetw'n kai; ajpekavluya" aujta nhpivoi"

1 Cor. 1:19: ajpolw' th;n sofivan tw'nsofw'n kai; th;n suvnesin tw'n sunetw'n ajqethvsw. 27: ta; mwra; tou' kovsmou ejxelevxato oJ qeo;" i{na kataiscuvnh/ tou;" sofouv".

11:41: pavnta kaqara; uJmi'n ejstin

Tit. 1:15:pavnta me;n kaqara; toi'" kaqaroi'".

11:49; ajpostelw' eij" aujtou;" profhvta" kai; ajpostovlou" kai; ejx aujtw'n ajpoktenou'si kai; ekdiwvxousin

1 Thess. 2:15: tw'n kai; to;n kuvrion ajpokteinavntwn jIhsou'n kai; tou;" profhvta" kai; hJma'" ejkdiwxavntwn.

12:35:e[stwsan uJmw'n aij ojsfuve" periezwsmevnai.

Eph. 6:14: sth'te ouperizwsavmenoi tw'n ojsfu'n uJmw'n ejn ajlhqeiva/.

18:1: dei'n pavntote proseuvcesqai kai; mh; ejkkakei'n.

2 Thess. 1:11: eij" o{ kai proseuxovmeqa pavntote. Col. 4:12: pavntote aJgwvnizovmeno" uJpe;r uJmw'n ejn tai'" proseuxai'" .. Comp. 1 Thess. 5:1, 7; Rom. 1:10.

20:16: mh; gevnoito.

Rom. 9:14; 11:11; Gal. 3:21.

20:38: pavnte" ga;r aujtw'/ zw'sin.

Rom. 14:7, 8: ejavn te ga;r zw'men, tw/ kupivw/ zw'men. Comp. 2 Cor. 5:15.

21:24: kai ; JIerousalh;m e[stai patoumevnh uJpo; ejqnw'n a[cri plhrwqw'si kairoi; ejqnw'n.

Rom. 11:25: o{ti pwvrwsi" tw'/ jIsrah;l gevgonen a[cri" ou| to; plhvrwma tw'n ejqnw

(157; original 1023): See the ancient testimonies in Charteris’s Kirchhofer, l.c., 154 sqq.

(158; original 1024): Freely admitted by Zeller, Davidson (I. 444), and others of that school.

(159; original 1025): Even the author of "Supernatural Religion" was forced at last to surrender to the arguments of Dr. Sanday, in 1875, after the question had already been settled years before in Germany by Hilgenfeld (1850) and Volkmar (1852). Davidson also (Introd., new ed., I. 446) admits: "There is no doubt that Marcion had the Gospel of Luke, which he adapted to his own ideas by arbitrary treatment. He lived before Justin, about a.d. 140, and is the earliest writer from whom we learn the existence of the Gospel."

(160; original 1026): Davidson still adheres to this exploded Tübingen view in his new edition (I. 467): "Luke wished to bring Judaism [sic!] and Paulinism together in the sphere of comprehensive Christianity, where the former would merge into the latter. In conformity with this purpose, he describes the irreconcilable opposition between Jesus and his opponents." As if Matthew and Mark and John did not precisely the same thing. He even repeats the absurd fiction of Baur, which was refuted long ago, not only by Godet, but even in part at least by Zeller, Holtzmann, and Keim, that Luke had "the obvious tendency to depreciate the twelve, in comparison with the seventy" (p. 469). Baur derived the chief proof of an alleged hostility of Luke to Peter from his omission of the famous passage, "Thou art Rock;" but Mark omits it likewise; and Luke, on the other hand, is the only Evangelist who records the word of Christ to Peter, Luke 22:32, on which the Romanists base the dogma of papal infallibility.

(161; original 1027): The critics differ widely as to the date of composition: (1) For a date prior to a.d. 70 are all the older divines, also Lange, Ebrard, Guericke, van Oosterzee, Godet (60-67), Thiersch (58-60), Alford (58), Riddle (60). (2) For a date between 70 and 90: De Wette, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann, Güder, Meyer, Weiss (70-80), Keim, Abbott (80-90). (3) For a.d. 100 and later: Hilgenfeld and Volkmar (100), Zeller and Davidson (100-110). The date of Baur, a.d. 140, is perfectly wild and made impossible by the clear testimonies of Justin Martyr and Marcion. Hence he was unwilling to retract in toto his former view about the priority of Marcion’s Gospel, though he felt obliged to do it in part (Kirchengesch. I. 75 and 78).

(162; original 1028): Dr. Abbott, of London (in "Enc. Brit.," X. 813, of the ninth ed., 1879), discovers no less than ten reasons for the later date of Luke, eight of them in the preface alone: "(1) the pre-existence and implied failure of many ’attempts’ to set forth continuous narratives of the things ’surely believed;’ (2) the mention of ’tradition’ of the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word as past, not as present (parejdosan, Luke 1:2); (3) the dedication of the Gospel to a man of rank (fictitious or otherwise), who is supposed to have been ’catechized’ in Christian truth; (4) the attempt at literary style and at improvement of the ’usus ecclesiasticus’ of the common tradition; (5) the composition of something like a commencement of a Christian hymnology; (6) the development of the genealogy and the higher tone of the narrative of the incarnation; (7) the insertion of many passages mentioning our Lord as oJ kuvrio" not in address, but in narrative; (8) the distinction, more sharply drawn, between the fall of Jerusalem and the final coming; (9) the detailed prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, implying reminiscences of its fulfilment; (10) the very great development of the manifestations of Jesus after the resurrection. The inference from all this evidence would be that Luke was not written till about a.d 80 at earliest. If it could be further demonstrated that Luke used any Apocryphal book (Judith, for example), and if it could be shown that the book in question was written after a certain date (Renan suggests a.d 80 for the date of the book of Judith), it might be necessary to place Luke much later; but no such demonstration has been hitherto produced." But most of these arguments are set aside by the hJmi'n in Luke 1:2, which includes the writer among those who heard the gospel story from the eye-witnesses of the life of Christ. It is also evident from the Acts that the writer, who is identical with the third Evangelist, was an intimate companion of Paul, and hence belonged to the first generation of disciples, which includes all the converts of the apostles from the day of Pentecost down to the destruction of Jerusalem.

(163; original 1029): Keim (I. 70) thus eloquently magnifies this little difference: "Anders als dem Matthaeus steht diesem Schrifstellen [Lukas] das Wirklichkeitsbild der Katastrophe der heiligen Stadt in seiner ganzen schrecklichen Grösse vor der Seele, die langwierige und kunstvolle Belagerung des Feindes, die Heere, die befestigten Lager, der Ring der Absperrung, die tausend Bedrängnisse, die Blutarbeit des Schwerts, die Gefangenführung des Volkes, der Tempel, die Stadt dem Boden gleich, Alles unter dem ernsten Gesichtspunkt eines Strafgerichtes Gottes für die dung des Gesandten. Ja über die Katastrophe hinaus, die äusserste Perspektive des ersten Evangelisten, dehnt sich dem neuen Geschichtschreiber eine new unbestimmbar grosse Periode der Trümmerlage Jerusalemz unter dem ehernen Tritt der Heiden und heidnischer Weltzeiten, innerhalb deren er selber schreibt. Unter solchen Umständen hat die grosse Zukunftrede Jesu bei aller Sorgfalt, die wesentlichen Züge, sogar die Wiederkunft in diesem ’Geschlect’zu halten die mannigfaltigsten Aenderungen erlitten." The same argument is urged more soberly by Holtzmann (Syn. Evang., 406 sq.), and even by Güder (in Herzog, IX. 19) and Weiss (in Meyer, 6th ed., p. 243), but they assume that Luke wrote only a few years after Matthew.

(164; original 1030): "It is psychologically impossible," says Godet (p. 543), "that Luke should have indulged in manipulating at pleasure the sayings of that Being on whom his faith was fixed, whom he regarded as the Son of God."

(165; original 1031): Jerome: Achaia and Boeotia; Hilgenfeld (in 1858): Achaia or Macedonia; Godet (in his first ed.): Corinth, in the house of Gaius (Rom. 16:23), but more indefinitely in the second ed.: Achaia.

(166; original 1032): The Peshito, which gives the title: "Gospel of Luke the Evangelist, which he published and preached in Greek in Alexandria the Great."

(167; original 1033): Köstlin and Overbeck, also Hilgenfeld in 1875 (Einleit., p. 612).

(168; original 1034): Michaelis, Kuinöl, Schott, Thiersch, and others.

(169; original 1035): Hug, Ewald, Zeller, Holtzmann, Keim, Davidson.

(170; original 1036): Weiss, in the sixth ed. of Meyer (p. 244) "Wo das Evang. geschrieben sei, ist völlig unbekannt."

(171; original 1037): John 14:26; 16:18. Comp. Matt. 10:19, 20; Luke 12:12; Acts 4:8.

(172; original 1038): Adv. Haer., III., cap. 1, § 2.

(173; original 1039): Ibid. III. 11, 1.

(174; original 1040): "Ut recognoscentibus omnibus, Joannes suo nomine cuncta describeret.

(175; original 1041): "Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem profitetur." See the Latin text as published by Tregelles, also in Charteris, l.c., p. 3, and the translation of Westcott, History of the Canon, p. 187.

(176; original 1042): Matt. 10:2; Luke 6:14; Mark 3:16; 13:3; John 1:41; 12:22; Acts 1:13.

(177; original 1043): Quoted by Westcott and Hilgenfeld. I will add the original from Migne, Patrol., V. 333: "Cum enim essent Valentinus et Cerinthus, et Ebion, et caeteri scholae satanae, diffusi per orbem, convenerunt ad illum de finitimis provinciis omnes episcopi, et compulerunt eum, ut et ipse testimonium coscriberet."

(178; original 1044): Preface to Com in Matt.

(179; original 1045): Adv. Haer., III. 11, 1.

(180; original 1046): Basilides in Hippolytus, Ref. Haer., VII. 22.

(181; original 1047): In Eusebius, H. E., VI. 14 (quoting from the Hypotyposes):to;n jIwavnnhn e[scaton sunidovnta o{ti ta; swmatika; ejn toi'" eujaggelivoi" dedhvlwtai protrapevnta uJpo; tw'n gnwrivmwn[i.e., either well known friends, or distinguished, notable men], pneuvmati qeoforhqevnta, pneumatiko;n poih'sai eujaggevlion. Origen had a similar view, namely, that John alone among the Evangelists clearly teaches the divinity of Christ. Tom. 1:6 in Joan. (Opp., IV. 6).

(182; original 1048): H. E., III. 24. Jerome repeats this view and connects it with the antiheretical aim, De vir. illustr., c. 9, comp. Com. in Matt. Proaem. Theodore of Mopsuestia thought that John intended to supplement the Synoptists chiefly by the discourses on the divinity of Christ. See Fritzsche’s ed. of fragments of his Commentaries on the New Test., Turici, p. 19 sq. (quoted by Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 696).

(183; original 1049): Godet expresses the same view (I. 862): "Cette intention de compléter les récits antérieurs, soit au point de vue historique,comme l’a pensé Eusébe, soit sous un rapport plus spirituel, comme l’a déclaré Clément d’Alexandrie, est donc parfaitement fondée en fait; nous la constatons commne un but secondaire at, pour mieux dire, comme moyen servant au but principal."

(184; original 1050): Opera, IV. 6: tolmhtevon toivnun eijpei'n ajparch;n me;n pasw'n grafw'n ei|nai ta; eujaggevlia, tw'n de eujaggelivwn ajparch;n to; kata; jIwavnnhn.

(185; original 1051): DeWette says that the discourses of Christ in John shine with more than earthly brilliancy (sie strahlen in mehr als irdischem Brillantfeuer, Exeg. Handbuch, I.3, p. 7). Holtzmann: "The fundamental ideas of the fourth Gospel lie far beyond the horizon of the church in the second century, and indeed of the whole Christian church down to the present day" (in Schenkel’s "Bibel. Lexik.," II. 234). Baur and Keim (I. 133) give the Gospel the highest praise asa philosophy of religion, but deny its historical value.

(186; original 1052): Renan and John Stuart Mill have confessed a strong antipathy to these discourses. Renan’s last judgment on the Gospel of John (in L’église chrét., 1879, p. 51) is as follows: "On l’a trop admiré. Il a de la chaleur, parfois une sorte de sublimité, mais quelque chose d’enflé, de faux, d’obsur. La naïveté manque tout à fait. L’auteur ne raconte pas; il démontre. Rien de plus tatigant que ses longs récits de miracles et que ces discussions, roulant sur des malentendus, où les adversaires de Jésus jouent le rôle d’idiots. Combien à ce pathos verbeux nous préférons le doux style, tout hébreu encore, du Discours sur la montagne, et cette limpidité de narration qui fait le charme des évangélistes primitifs! Ceux-ci n’ont pas besoin de répéter sans cesse que ce qu’ils racontent est vrai. Leur sincérité, inconsciente de l’objection, n’a pas cette soif fébrile d’attestations répétéesqui montre que l’incrédulité, le doute, ont déjà commencé. Au ton légèrement excité de ce nouveau narrateur, on dirait qu’il a peur de n’étre pas cru, et qu’il cherche à surprendre la religion de son lecteur par des affirmations pleines d’emphase." John Stuart Mill (Three Essays on Religion, p. 253) irreverently calls the discourses in John "poor stuff," imported from Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists, and imagines that a multitude of Oriental Gnostics might have manufactured such a book. But why did they not do it?

(187; original 1053): Notwithstanding such passages Dr. Davidson asserts (II. 278): "In uniting the only-begotten Son of God with the historical Jesus, the evangelist implies the absence of full humanity. The personality consists essentially of the Logos, the flesh being only a temporary thing. Body, soul, and spirit do not belong to Jesus Christ; he is the Logos incarnate for a time, who soon returns to the original state of oneness with the Father."

(188; original 1054): Lange, Westcott, Milligan and Moulton dwell at length on this feature.

(189; original 1055): Hase (Geschichte Jesu, p. 61) makes some striking remarks on this parallel: "Der Sokrates des Xenophon ist ein anderer als der des Plato, jeder hat diejenige Seite aufgefasst, die ihm die nächst und liebste war; erst aus beider. Darstellungen erkennen wir den rechten Sokrates. Xenophons anschauliche Einfachheit trägt das volle Gepräge der Wahrheit dessen, was er erzählt. Dennoch dieser Sokrates, der sich im engen Kreise sittlicher und politischer Vorstellungen herumdreht, ist nicht der ganze Sokrates, der weiseste in Griechenland, der die grosse Revolution in den Geistem seines Volks hervorgerufen hat. Dagegen der platonische Sokrates sich weit mehr zum Schöpfer der neuen Periods griechischer Philosophie eignet und darnach aussieht, als habe er die Weisheit vom Himmel zur Erde gebracht, der attische Logos."

(190; original 1056): Milligan and Moulton, in their excellent Commentary on John, Introd., p. xxxiii.

(191; original 1057): "Si Jésus," says Renan, "parlait comme le veut Matthieu, il n’a pu parler comme le veut Jean."

(192; original 1058): John 1:26, 43; 2:19; 4:44; 6:20, 35, 37; 12:13, 25, 27; 18:16, 20:20:19, 23. See the lists in Godet, I. 197sq., and Westcott, p. lxxxii sq. The following are the principal parallel passages:

John 2:19: Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Matt. 26:61: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Cf. Mark 14:58; 15:29.

3:18: He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already.

Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

4:44: For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country.

Matt. 15:57: But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. Cf. Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24

5:8: Jesus saith unto him, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.

Matt. 9:6: Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. Cf. Mark 2:9; Luke 5:24.

6:20: It is I, be not afraid.

Matt 14:27: It is I, be not afraid. Cf. Mark 6:50.

6:35: He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Matt. 5:6; Luke 6:21: Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

6:37: All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.

Matt. 11:28, 29: Come unto me, an ye that labor and are heavy laden, ... and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father. Cf. 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Matt. 11:27: And no one knoweth the Son, save the Father, neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.

12:8: For the poor ye have always with you; but me ye have not always.

Matt. 26:11: For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Cf. Mark 14:7.

12:25: He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Matt. 10: 39: He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he thatloseth his life for my sake shall find it. Cf. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:83.

12:27: Now is my soul troubled; and what shall say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour.

Matt. 26:38: Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Cf. Mark 14:84.

13:3: Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands ....

Matt. 11:27: All things have been delivered unto me of my Father.

13:16: Verily, verily I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord.

Matt. 10:24: A disciple is not above his master, nor a servant above his lord. Cf. Luke 6:40.

13:20: He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Matt. 10:40: He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

14:18: I will not leave you desolate; I come unto you. Cf. 14:23: We will ... make our abode with him.

Matt. 28:20: I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

15:21: But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake.

Matt. 10:22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s make.

17:2: Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh.

Matt. 28:18: All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

20:23: Whosover sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them.

Matt. 18:18: What things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(193; original 1059): For further particulars of John’s style see my Companion tothe Study of the Greek Test., pp. 66-75, where the opinions of Renan, Ewald, Luthardt, Keim, Godet, Westcott, Hase, and Weiss are given on the subject.

(194; original 1060): See the literary notices on p. 405 sqq. To the able vindications of the genuineness of John there mentioned must now be added the masterly discussion of Dr. Weiss in his Leben Jesu (vol. I., 1882, pp. 84-124), which has just come to hand.

(195; original 1061): Recently renewed in part by Renan (1879). See below.

(196; original 1062): His quotation is considered the earliest by name; but Irenaeus, who wrote between 177 and 192, represents an older tradition, and proves to his satisfaction that there must be just four Gospels to answer the four cherubim in Ezekiel’s vision. Adv. Haer., III. 1, 1; 11, 8; V. 36, 2.

(197; original 1063): The Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on the Diatessaron (375) has recently been discovered and published from an Armenian translation, at Venice, in 1876. Comp. Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881, and Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechisch en Apologeten des zweiten Jahrh., Leipzig, 1882, pp. 213 sqq.

(198; original 1064): The use of the Gospel of John by Justin Martyr was doubted by Baur and most of his followers, but is admitted by Hilgenfeld and Keim. It was again denied by the anonymous author of "Supernatural Religion," and by Edwin A. Abbott (in the art. Gospels, "Enc. Brit.," vol. X 821), and again conclusively proven by Sanday in England, and Ezra Abbot in America.

(199; original 1065): The quotation is not literal but from memory, like most of his quotations:

Justin, Apol., I. 61: "For Christ also said, Except ye be born again [ajnagennhqh'te, comp. 1 Pet. 3:23], ye shall in no wise enter [eijsevlqh'te, but comp. the same word In John 8:5 and 7] into the kingdom of heaven (the phrase of Matthew]. Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is manifest to all."

John 3:3, 4: "Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born anew [or from above, gennhqh'/ a[nwqen], he cannot see [ijdei'n 3: 5, enter into] the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?"

Much account has been made by the Tübingen critics of the slight differences in the quotation (ajnagennhqh'te for gennhqh'/ a[nwqen, eijselqei'n for ijdei'n and basileiva tw'n oujranw'n for ba". tou' qeou') to disprove the connection, or, as this is impossible, to prove the dependence of John on Justin! But Dr. Abbot, a most accurate and conscientious scholar, who moreover as a Unitarian cannot be charged with an orthodox bias, has produced many parallel cases of free quotations of the same passage not only from patristic writers, but even from modem divines, including no less than nine quotations of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, only two of which are alike. I think he has conclusively proven his case for every reasonable mind. See his invaluable monograph on The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 28 sqq. and 91 sqq. Comp. also Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. 83, who sees in Justin Martyr not only "an unquestionable allusion to the Nicodemus story of the fourth Gospel," but other isolated reminiscences

(200; original 1066): Comp. such expressions as "I desire bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ ... and I desire as drink His blood, which is love imperishable," Ad Rom., ch. 7, with John 6:47 sqq.; "living water," Ad Rom. 7, with John 4:10, 11; "being Himself the Door of the Father," Ad Philad., 9, with John 10:9; [the Spirit] "knows whence it cometh and whither it goeth," Ad Philad., 7, with John 3:8. I quoted from the text of Zahn. See the able art. of Lightfoot in "Contemp. Rev." for February, 1875, and his S. Ignatius, 1885.

(201; original 1067): Polyc., Ad Phil., ch. 7: "Every one that doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is Antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the mystery of the cross is of the devil." Comp. 1 John 4:3. On the testimony of Polycarp see Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for May, 1875. Westcott, p. xxx, says: "A testimony to one" (the Gospel or the first Ep.) "is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other."

(202; original 1068): According to Eusebius, III. 39. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for August and October, 1875.

(203; original 1069): Eusebius, H. E., III. 39, closes his account of Papias with the notice: "He has likewise set forth another narrative [in his Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles] concerning a woman who was maliciously accused before the Lord touching many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."

(204; original 1070): In a tradition too late (ninth century) to be of any critical weight, Papias is even made the amanuensis of John in the preparation of his Gospel. A Vatican Codex (of Queen Christina of Sweden) has this marginal gloss: "Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhuc in corpore constituto; sicut Papiss, nomine Hieropolitanus discipulus Johannis carus, in exotericis [exegeticis],id est in extremis, quinque libris retulit [referring no doubt to the five books of Logivwn Kuriakw'n ejxhghvsei"].Descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte." This was hailed as a direct testimony of Papias for John by Prof. Aberle (Rom. Cath.) in the " Tübing. Quartalschrift," 1864, No. 1, but set aside by Hilgenfeld versus Aberle, in his " Zeitschrift," 1865, pp. 77 sqq., and Hase, l.c, p. 35. If Eusebius had found this notice in the work of Papias, he would have probably mentioned it in connection with his testimonies on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. But see Westcott, Canon, 5th ed., p. 77, note 1.

(205; original 1071): See Schürer’s Latin dissertation De controversiis paschalibus, etc., Leipz., 1869, and the German translation in the "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol." for 1970, pp. 182-284.

(206; original 1072): In the last portion of the book, discovered and first published by Dressel (XIX. 22). This discovery has induced Hilgenfeld to retract his former denial of the quotations in the earlier books, Einleit. in d. N. T., p, 43 sq., note.

(207; original 1073): See the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, VII. 22, 27; Hofstede de Groot, Basilides, trans. from the Dutch, Leipz, 1868; Hort, Basilides, in Smith and Wace, I. 271; Abbot, l.c. 85 sqq.

(208; original 1074): L. c., p. 89.

(209; original 1075): See Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, 1873, pp. 223-230, besides the older investigations of Lardner, Norton, Tholuck, and the recent one of Dr. Abbot, l.c., 58 sq.

(210; original 1076): John 1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 7:38; 10:34; 12:14, 38, 40; 13:18; 15:25; 19:21, 36, 37.

(211; original 1077): See the careful analysis of the passages by Westcott, Intr., pp. xiii sqq.

(212; original 1078): Johannes als der Erzählende, in seinem Selbstbewusstsein, bedarf für den anderen Johannes des Beinamens nicht, ihm liegt die Verwechslung ganz fern." Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 48. The former belief of the venerable historian of Jena in the fall Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel was unfortunately shaken in his conflict with the Tübingen giant, but he declares the objections of Baur after all inconclusive, and seeks an escape from the dilemma by the untenable compromise that the oral teaching of John a few years after his death was committed to writing and somewhat mystified by an able pupil. "Die Botschaft hört er wohl, allein ihm fehlt der Glaube."

(213; original 1079): John 1:29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1; 4:6, 40, 43, 52; 6:22; 7:14, 37; 11:6, 17, 39; 12:1, 12; 13:30; 18:28; 19:31; 20:1, 19, 26; 21:4.

(214; original 1080): John 1:35; 2:6; 4:18; 6:9, 10, 19; 19:23, 39; 21:8, 11.

(215; original 1081): John 2:17, 22; 4:27; 6:60; 12:16; 13:22, 28; 20:9; 21:12.

(216; original 1082): John 2:24, 25; 4:1-3; 5:6; 6:6, 15; 7:1; 11:33, 38; 13:1, 3, 11, 21 16:19; 18:4; 19:28.

(217; original 1083): "How often has this fourth chapter been read since by Christian pilgrims on the very spot where the Saviour rested, with the irresistible impression that every word is true and adapted to the time and place, yet applicable to all times and places. Jacob’s well is now in ruins and no more used, but the living spring of water which the Saviour first opened there to a poor, sinful, yet penitent woman is as deep and fresh as ever, and will quench the thirst of souls to the end of time." So I wrote in 1871 for the English edition of Lange’s Com. on John, p. 151. Six years afterward I fully realized my anticipations, when with a company of friends I sat down on Jacob’s well and read John 4 as I never read it before. Palestine, even in "the imploring beauty of decay," is indeed a "fifth Gospel" which sheds more light on the four than many a commentary brimful of learning and critical conjectures.

(218; original 1084): John 1:14: ejqeasavmeqa th;n dovxan. qeavomai is richer than oJravw, and means to behold or contemplate with admiration and delight. The plural adds force to the statement, as in 21:24; 1 John 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:16.

(219; original 1085): See p. 419 sq., and my Companion to the Greek Testament, pp. 76 sqq.

(220; original 1086): Before him Edward Evanson, an ex-clergyman of the Church of England, had attacked John and all other Gospels except Luke, in The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists, 1792. He was refuted by the Unitarian, Dr. Priestley, who came to the conclusion that the Gospel of John "bears more internal and unequivocal marks of being written by an eye-witness than any other writings whatever, sacred or profane." See his Letters to a Young Man (Works, vol. XX. 430).

(221; original 1087): Ueber die Composition und den Charakter des joh. Evangeliums, an essay in the "Theol. Jahrücher" of Zeller, Tübingen, 1844; again in his Krit. Untersuchungen über die kanon. Evang., Tüb., 1847, and in his Kirchengesch., 1853(vol. I., pp. 146 sqq., 166 sqq., third ed.). Godet (I. 17) calls the first dissertation of Baur justly "one of the most ingenious and brilliant compositions which theological science ever produced."

(222; original 1088): From Wittichen and Scholten.

(223; original 1089): Especially from Hilgenfeld. The tradition of the Ephesian sojourn of John is one of the strongest and most constant in the ancient church, and goes back to Polycrates, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias, the very pupils and grandpupils of John, who could not possibly be mistaken on such a simple fact as this.

(224; original 1090): Dr. Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 106) accords to Dr. Baur the merit of having penetrated deeper into the peculiar character of the fourth Gospel and done more for the promotion of its understanding then the mechanical old exegesis, which had no conception of the difference and looked only for dicta probantia; but he justly adds that Baur’s criticism is "sicklied all over with the pale cast" of modern philosophical construction (von der Blässe moderner philosophischer Construction angekränkelt). We are prepared to say the same of Dr. Keim, a proud, but noble and earnest spirit who died of overwork in elaborating his History of Jesus of Nazara. The most scholarly, high-toned, and singularly able argument in the English language against the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel is the article "Gospels" in the "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., vol. X. 818-843 (1879), from the pen of Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, head-master of the City of London School.

(225; original 1091): Without detracting from the merits of the many worthy champions of the cause of truth, I venture to give the palm to Dr. Godet, of Neuchâtel, in the introductory volume to his third and thoroughly revised Commentary on John (Introduction historique et critique, Paris, 1881, 376 pages), and to Dr. Weiss, of Berlin, in his very able Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882, vol. I. 84-198. In England the battle has been fought chiefly by Bishop Lightfoot, Canon Westcott, Prof. Milligan, and Dr. Sanday. In America, Dr. Ezra Abbot (1880) is equal to any of them in the accurate and effective presentation of the historical argument for the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel. His treatise has been reprinted in his Critical Essays, Boston, l888 (pp. 9-107).

(226; original 1092): *"**Tout est possible," says Renan (L’Église chrét.,* p. 54), "à cesépoques ténébreuses; et, si l’Église, en vénérant le quatrième Évangile comme l’oeuvre de Jean, est dupe de celui qu’elle regarde comme un de ses plus dangereux ennemis, cela n’est pas en somme plus étrange que tant d’autres malentendus qui composent la trame de l’histoire religieuse de l’humanité. Ce qu’il y a de sûr, c’est que l’auteur est à la fois le père et l’adversaire du gnosticisme, l’ennemi de ceux qui laissaient s’evaporer dans un docétisme nuageux l’humanité réelle de Jésus et le complice de ceus qui le reléguaient dans l’abstraction divine." He thinks it more probable, however (p. 47), that two Ephesian disciples of John (John the Presbyter and Aristion) wrote the Gospel twenty or thirty years after his death.

(227; original 1093): In the last edition of his abridged Geschichte Jesu.

(228; original 1094): As Weiss (I. 109) admirably expresses it: "Ueberall im Einzelnen wie in der Gesammtgestaltung des Lebens Jesu stossen wir auf das harte Gestein geschichtlicher Erinnerung, welches dem kritischen Auflösungsprozess, der es in ideelle Bildungen verwandeln will, unüberwindlichen Widerstand leistet."

(229; original 1095): "Als die Dichtung eines halbgnostischen Philosophen aus dem zweiten Jahrhundert ist es [the fourth Gospel] ein trügerisches Irrlicht, ja in Wahrheit eine grosse Lüge,"Weiss, I. 124. Renan admits the alternative, only in milder terms:"Il y a là un petit artifice littéraire, du genre de ceux qu’affectionne Platon," l.c., p. 52.

(230; original 1096): This absurdity is strikingly characterized in the lines of the Swabian poet, Gustav Schwab, which he gave me when I was a student at Tübingen shortly after the appearance of Strauss’s Leben Jesu:

"Hat dieses Buch, das ew’ge Wahrheit ist,

Ein lügenhafter Gnostiker geschrieben,

So hat seit tausend Jahren Jesus Christ

Den Teufel durch Beelzebub vertrieben."

(231; original 1097): See the conclusive proof in Zeller, pp. 414-452 (Engl. transl. by Dare, vol. II. 213-254). Holtzmann (Syn. Evang., p. 875): "Als ausgemacht darf man heutzutage wohl annehmen, dass der Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte und des dritten Evangeliums ein und dieselbePerson sind."Renan speaks in the same confident tone (Les Apôtres, pp. x. and xi. .): "Une chose hors de doute, c’est que les Actes ont eut le méme auteur que le troisiéme évangile et sont une continuation de cet évangile ... La parfaite ressemblance du style et des idées fournissent à cet égard d’abondantes démonstrations .... Les deux livres réunis font un ensemble absolument du mime style, présentant les mémes locutions favorites et la méme façon de citer l’écriture."Scholten dissents from this view and vainly tries to show that while both books originated in the school of Paul, the third evangelist elevates Paulinism above Jewish Christianity, and the author of Acts recommends Paul to the Jewish-Christian party. The Gospel is polemical, the Acts apologetic. Das Paulinische Evangelium, etc., transl. from the Dutch by Redepenning, Elberf., 1881, p. 315.

(232; original 1098): The history of the Reformation furnishes a parallel; namely, the further progress of Christianity from Rome (the Christian Jerusalem) to Wittenberg, Geneva, Oxford and Edinburgh, through the labors of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Knox.

(233; original 1099): Ewald, in his Commentary on Acts (1872), pp. 35 sqq., infers from the use of the little word we and its connection with the other portions that the whole work is from one and the same author, who is none other than Luke of Antioch, the "beloved" friend and colaborer of Paul. Renan says (La apôtres, p. xiv.): "Je persiste à croire que le dernier rédacteur des Acts est bien le disciple de Paul qui dit ’nous’aux derniers chapitres,"but he puts the composition down to a.d. 71 or 72 (p. xx.), and in his Les Évangiles, ch. xix., pp. 435 sqq., still later, to the age of Domitian.

(234; original 1100): First published in 1790, and often since. See also the list of parallel passages in Dr. Plumptre’s Com. on Acts, pp. x. and xi.

(235; original 1101): Ant. XX. 5, § 1.

(236; original 1102): Ant. XVII. 10.

(237; original 1103): See above, p. 122.

(238; original 1104): Ant. XVIII. 1; XX. 5, § 2; War, II. 8, § 1. In the first passage Josephus calls Judas a Gaulonite (i.e., from the country east of Galilee), but in the other passage he is described as a Galilaean. He may have been a native of Gaulonitis and a resident of Galilee.

(239; original 1105): Strabo, XVII., p. 820; comp. Pliny IV. 35; Dion Cass., LIV. 5.

(240; original 1106): Josephus, Ant. XX. 5; comp, Tacitus, Ann. XII. 43; Sueton., Claud. 28.

(241; original 1107): Ant. XVIII. 8.

(242; original 1108): Strabo, XIV., at the close.

(243; original 1109): Dio Cassius, LIII. 12.

(244; original 1110): Akerman, Numismatic Illustrations, pp. 39-42.

(245; original 1111): TWN EPI - PAULOU - [ANQ]UPATOU. See Louis Palma di Cesnola’s Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples, New York, 1878, p. 424 sq. He says: "The Proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus of the Acts of the Apostles 13, as instances of the suppression of one or two names are not rare." Bishop Lightfoot ("Cont. Review" for 1876, p. 290 sq.) satisfactorily accounts for the omission of Sergius, and identifies also the name Sergius Paulus from the elder Pliny, who mentions him twice as a Latin author in the first book of his Natural History and as his chief authority for the facts in the second and eighteenth books, two of these facts being especially connected with Cyprus. The Consul L. Sergius Paulus, whom Galen the physician met at Rome a.d. 151, and whom he mentions repeatedly, first under his full name and then simply as Paulus, may have been a descendant of the convert of the apostle.

(246; original 1112): Tacitus, Ann. I. 76; Sueton., Claudius, c. 25.

(247; original 1113): Metam., VIII. 625-724.

(248; original 1114): Dion Cass., LI. 4; Pliny, Nat. Hist. IV.11.

(249; original 1115): Strabo, XIII. 4, § 14. Inscriptions found in the place attest the existence of a guild of purple-dealers, with which Lydia was probably connected.

(250; original 1116): tou;" politavrca" , i.e.,touv" a[rconta" tw'n politw'n, praefectos civitatis, the rulers of the city. Grimm says: "Usitatius Graecis erat, polivarco""

(251; original 1117): The Thessalonian inscription in Greek letters is given by Boeckh. Leake, and Howson (in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Letters of St. Paul, ch. IX., large Lond. ed., I. 860). Three of the names are identical, with those of Paul’s friends in that region-Sopater of Beraea (Acts 20:4), Gaius of Macedonia (19:29), and Secundus of Thessalonica (20:4). I will only give the first line:

POLEITARCOUNTWN SWSIPATROU TOU KLEO.

(252; original 1118): See the commentaries on Acts 17:16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 28. The singular qew'/ in 17:23 creates some difficulty; for Pausanias (I. 1-4) mentions "altars to unknown gods" which were set up in the harbor and streets of Athens; and Diogenes Laërtius (Epimen., c. 3) speaks of "altars without name" in many parts of Athens. It is supposed that Paul meant one of these altars, or that he ingeniously adapted the polytheistic inscription to his argument. In the dialogue Philopatris which is erroneously ascribed to Lucian, one of the speakers swears "by the unknown god of Athens."

(253; original 1119): See Wood:Discoveries at Ephesus, and Lightfoot’s article above quoted, p. 295. Lightfoot aided Mr. Wood in explaining the inscriptions.

(254; original 1120): Comp. § 82 of this vol., and myCompanion to the Greek Test., p. 61.

(255; original 1121): This view was first broached by Baur (1836, 1838, and 1845), then carried out by Schneckenburger (1841), more fully by Zeller (1854), and by Hilgenfeld (1872, and in his Einleitung, 1875). Renan also presents substantially the same view, though somewhat modified. "Les Actes"(Les Apôtres, p. xxix.) "sont une histoire dogmatique, arrangée pour appuyer les doctrines orthodoxes du temps ou inculquer les idées qui souriaíent le plus à la pieté de l’auteur."He thinks, it could not be otherwise, as we know the history of religions only from the reports of believers; "i il n’y a que le sceptique qui écrive l’histoire ad narrandum."

(256; original 1122): suvmfutoi, Rom. 6:5; not "planted together" (as in the A. V. and the Vulgate); the word being derived from fuvw to cause to grow, not from futeuw, to plant.

(257; original 1123): The so-called Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul and his answer, preserved in Armenian, are spurious and worthless.

(258; original 1124): Hence Origen calls it an ejpistolh; kaqolikhv.

(259; original 1125): Reuss (Gesch. d. heil. Schriften N. Testaments, 5th ed., I. 138): "Thatsache ist, dass die Ep. Jacobi für sich allein mehr wörtliche Reminiscenzen aus den Reden Jesu enthält als alle übrigen Apost. Schriften zusammen .... Insofern dieselben offenbar nicht aus schriftlichen Quellen geflossen sind, mögen sie mit das höhere Alter deg Briefs verbürgen." Beyschlag (in the new ed. of Huther in Meyer, 1881) and Erdmann (1881), the most recent commentators of James, agree with Schneckenburger, Neander, and Thiersch in assigning the Epistle to the earliest date of Christian literature, against the Tübingen school, which makes it a polemical treatise against Paul. Reuss occupies a middle position. The undeveloped state of Christian doctrine, the use of sunagwgh; for a Christian assembly (James 2:2), the want of a clear distinction between Jews and Jewish Christians, who are addressed as "the twelve tribes," and the expectation of the approaching parousia (5:8), concur as signs of the high antiquity.

(260; original 1126): Commentators are divided on the meaning of Babylon, 1 Pet. 5:13, whether it be the mystic Babylon of the Apocalypse, i.e., heathen Rome, as a persecuting power (the fathers, Roman Catholic divines, also Thiersch, Baur, Renan), or Babylon on the Euphrates, or Babylon in Egypt (old Cairo). The question is connected with Peter’s presence in Rome, which has been discussed in § 26. On the date of composition commentators are likewise divided, as they differ in their views on the relation of Peter’s Epistle to Romans, Ephesians, and James, and on the character of the persecution alluded to in the Epistle. Weiss, who denies that Peter used the Epistles of Paul, dates it back as far as 54; the Tübingen critics bring it down to the age of Trajan (Volkmar even to 140!), but most critics assign it to the time between 63 and 67, Renan to 63, shortly before the Neronian persecution. For once I agree with him. See Huther (in the Meyer series), 4th ed., pp. 30 sqq.; Weiss, Die Petrinische Frage (1865); Renan, L’Antechrist, p. vi and 110; and, on the part of the Tübingen school, Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, pp. 417 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, pp. 625 sqq.; Holtzmann, Einleitung, pp. 514 sqq. (2d ed.).

(261; original 1127): "This excellent Epistle," says Archbishop Leighton, whose Practical Commentary upon the First Epistle General of St. Peter is still unsurpassed for spirituality and unction, "is a brief and yet very clear summary both of the consolations and instructions needful for the encouragement and direction of a Christian in his journey to heaven, elevating his thoughts and desires to that happiness, and strengthening him against all opposition in the way, both that of corruption within and temptations and afflictions from without." Bengel: "Mirabilis est gravitas et alacritas Petrini sermonis, lectorem suavissime retinens." Alford: "There is no Epistle in the sacred canon, the language and spirit of which come more directly home to the personal trials and wants and weaknesses of the Christian life."

(262; original 1128): Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Neander, De Wette, Huther, and all the Tübingen critics.

(263; original 1129): Weiss, Thiersch, Fronmüller, Alford, and especially Fr. Spitta in his Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (Halle, 1885, 544 pages).

(264; original 1130): Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in Greek), and Epiphanius distinguish him from the Apostles. He is mentioned with James as one of the brothers of Jesus, Matt. 18:55; Mark 6:3. Comp. on this whole question the discussion in § 27.

(265; original 1131): Comp. 2 John 4 –7 with 1 John 2:7, 8; 4, 2, 3.

(266; original 1132): As he writes himself to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:7): "We were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children." And to the ungrateful and unsteady Galatians 4:9 he writes: "My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you."

(267; original 1133): "Das ist das Ende der Philosophie: zu wissen, dass wir glauben müssen." -(Geibel.)

(268; original 1134): By Renan, who, notwithstanding his fastidious French taste and antipathy to Paul’s theology, cannot help admiring his lofty genius.

(269; original 1135): Strabo calls it Qessalonivkaia. Its present name is Salonichi.

(270; original 1136): The difficult passage, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, must be explained in connection with the prophecies of Daniel (the fourth empire) and the Apocalypse. See the commentaries of Lünemann, Lange (Riggenbach, translated by Lillie), Ellicott, Jowett, Marcus Dods, and the Excursus of Farrar on the Man of Sin (St. Paul, II. 583-587). Many modern exegetes adopt the patristic interpretation that "the restraining power" (to; katevcon) is the Roman empire, "the restrainer" (oJ katevcwn) the then reigning emperor (Claudius), and "the man of sin" his successor, Nero. But the last is very doubtful. The whole passage must have a prophetic sweep far beyond the time of the old Roman empire. There are "many antichrists" and many restraining forces and persons in the successive ages, and the end is yet apparently afar off. "Obviously, whatever the words signify, they must mean something which has existed from Paul’s day to our own, something which, during that whole period, has had the effect of restraining wickedness." (Dods, in Schaff’s Com. on the N. T, III 535.)

(271; original 1137): Grimm, Lünemann, Reuss, Lipsius, and others have refuted the arguments of Baur. The first Epistle is conceded to be genuine also by Hilgenfeld, who declares (Einleit., p 246):"In dem ganzen Brief erkennt man die Sprache des Paulus. Es ist kein Grund vorhanden, denselben dem Paulus abzusprechen. Nicht so bedeutsam, wie andere Briefe, ist derselbe eines Paulus keineswegs unwürdig, vielmehr ein liebenswürdiges Denkmal väterlicher Fürsorge des Apostels für eine junge Christengemeinde." But the second Ep. to the Thess. Hilgenfeld assigns to the age of Trajan, as a sort of Pauline Apocalypse; thus reversing the view of Baur, who regarded the First Ep. as an imitation of the second. Grotius and Ewald put the Second Ep. likewise first (especially on account of 1 Thess. 1:7, 8, which seems to imply that the congregation had already become famous throughout Greece), but they regarded both as genuine.

(272; original 1138): Such scandals would be almost incredible in a Christian church if the apostle did not tell us so. As to the case of incest, 1 Cor. 5:1 sqq., we should remember that Corinth was the most licentious city in all Greece, and that in the splendid temple of her patron-goddess on the Acropolis there were kept more than a thousand sacred female slaves (iJerovdouloi) for the pleasure of strangers. Korinqiva kovrh was the name for a courtesan. Chastity was therefore one of the most difficult virtues to practice there; and hence the apostle’s advice of a radical cure by absolute abstinence under the peculiar circumstances of the time.

(273; original 1139): The question of the Corinthian parties (with special reference to the Christ party) I have discussed at length in my Hist. of the Ap. Church, pp. 285-291. Baur’s essay on this subject (1831) was the opening chapter in the development of the Tübingen theory.

(274; original 1140): Comp. 1 Cor. 16:5, 8; 5:7, 8; Acts 19:10, 21; 20: 31.

(275; original 1141): 2 Cor. 7:5; 8:1; 9:2. Some ancient MSS. date the second Epistle from Philippi.

(276; original 1142): On the textual variations, see Westcott and Hort, Appendix, pp. 110-114. Reuss, Ewald, Farrar suppose that Rom. 16 (or 16:3-20) was addressed to Ephesus. Renan conjectures that an editor has combined four copies of the same encyclical letter of Paul, each addressed to a different church and having a different ending. Both these views are preferable to Baur’s rejection of the last two chapters as spurious; though they are full of the Pauline spirit. Hilgenfeld (Einleit., p. 323) and Pfleiderer (Paulinismus, p. 314) maintain, against Baur, the genuineness of Rom. 15 and Rom. 16. On the names in Rom. 16 see the instructive discussion of Lightfoot in his Com. on Philippians, pp. 172-176.

(277; original 1143): Phil. 1:7, 13, 14, 17; Eph. 3:1 ("the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles"); 4:1 ("the prisoner in the Lord"); Col. 4:3, 18 ("remember my bonds"); Philem. 10, 13; comp. Acts 28:17, 30.

(278; original 1144): So Böttger, Thiersch, Reuss, Meyer, Weiss. Thiersch dates even 2 Timothy from Caesarea, but denies the second Roman captivity.

(279; original 1145): This is the prevailing view among critics. I have discussed the order in the History of the Apost. Ch. (1853), pp. 322 sqq.

(280; original 1146): So Lightfoot (p. 31), followed by Farrar (II. 417). Ewald likewise puts Philippianas before Colossians, but denies the genuineuess of Ephesians. Bleek regards the data as insufficient to decide the chronological order. See his Einleitung, p. 461, and his posthumous Lectures on Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, published 1865, p. 7.

(281; original 1147): The earthquake took place, according to Tacitus (Ann, XIV. 27), in the seventh, according to Eusebius (Chron., Ol.210, 4), in the tenth year of Nero’s reign, and extended also to Hierapolis and Colossae.

(282; original 1148): In a Greek inscription, published by Boeckh and quoted by Lightfoot, Hierapolis is thus apostrophized:

"Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm;

Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d

With flowing rills, thy jewels."

(283; original 1149): Epictetus ( jEpivkthto"), a slave and then a freedman of Epaphroditus (who was himself a freedman of Nero), was considerably younger than Paul, and taught first at Rome, and, after the expulsion of the philosophers by Domitian, at Nicopolis in Epirus, where his discourses (Enchiridion) were taken down by Arrian. For, like Socrates, he himself wrote nothing. A meeting with Paul or Epaphras would " solve more than one riddle," as Lightfoot says. But he shows no trace of a knowledge of Christianity any more than Seneca, whose correspondence with Paul is spurious, though both lived at Rome under Nero. Marcus Aurelius, a century later, persecuted the Christians and alludes to them only once in his Meditations (XI. 3), where he traces their heroic zeal for martyrdom to sheer obstinacy. The self-reliant, stoic morality of these philosophers, sublime as it is, would have hindered rather than facilitated their acceptance of Christianity, which is based on repentance and humility.

(284; original 1150): Kolossaiv, Colossae, is the correct reading of the oldest MSS. against the later Kolassaiv, Colossae. Herodotus calls it povli" megavlh, and Xenophon eujdaivmwn kai; megavlh. In the middle ages it was called Cw'nai. There are few remains of it left two miles north of the present town of Chonos, which is inhabited by Christians and Turks.

(285; original 1151): Acts 16:6 (th;n Frugivan kai; Galatikh;n cwvran); 18:23.

(286; original 1152): Col. 2:1; comp. 1:4, 8, 9; and Lightfoot, Com., pp. 23 sqq. and 238.

(287; original 1153): Col. 1:7; 4:12; comp. Philem 23. Hilgenfeld (p. 663) thinks that Paul founded those churches, and uses this as an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle which implies the contrary. But how easily could a forger have avoided such an apparent contradiction.

(288; original 1154): Col. 4:16: th;n ejk Laodikaiva" i{na kai; uJmei'" a jnagnw'te. An abridged expression for "the letter left at Laodicea which you will procure thence." So Bleek and Lightfoot, in loco.

(289; original 1155): On the Colossian heresy I refer chiefly to Neander (I. 319 sqq.), the lectures of Bleek (pp. 11-19), and the valuable Excursus of Lightfoot, Com., pp. 73-113, who agrees with Neander and Bleek, but is more full. Lightfoot refutes the view of Hilgenfeld (Der Gnosticismus u. das N. Test., in the "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.," vol. XIII. 233 sqq.), who maintains that the Ep. opposes two different heresies, pure Gnosticism (Col. 2:8-10) and pure Judaism (2:16-23). Comp. his Einleitung, pp. 665 sqq. The two passages are connected by ta; stoicei'a tou' kovsmou(2:8 and 2:20), and the later history of Gnosticism shows, in a more developed form, the same strange mixture of Judaizing and paganizing elements. See the chapter on Gnosticism in the second volume.

(290; original 1156): The word plhvrwma, from plhrou'n, to fill, to complete, occurs eighteen times in the New Test., thirteen times in the Epistles of Paul (see Bruder). It designates the result of the action implied in the verb, i.e., complement, completeness, plenitude, perfection; and, in a wider sense (as in John 1:16; Col. 1:19; 2:9), fulness, abundance. Like other substantives ending in—ma, it has an active sense: the filling substance, that which fills (id quod implet, or id quo res impletur). So it is often used by the classics, e.g.,. plhvrwma povlew",the population of a city; in the Septuagint, for the Hebrew alm], abundance, e g., to; plhvrwma th'" gh'". or to; plhvrwma th'" qalavssh", that which fills the earth, or the sea; and in the New Test., e.g., Mark 6:43 (kofivnwn plhrwvmata); 8:20 (spurivdwn pl.). The passive sense is rare: that which is filled (id quod impletur or impletum est), the filled receptacle. Comp. Grimm and Robinson, sub verbo, and especially Fritzsche, Ad Rom. II. 469 sqq., and Lightfoot. Coloss. 323 sqq.

(291; original 1157): In this passage it in equivalent to plhvrwsi", legis observatio.

(292; original 1158): Col2:9 to; plhvrwma th'" qeovthto", deitas, Deity, not qeiovthto", divinitas, divinity. Bengel remarks: " Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura." So also Lightfoot.

(293; original 1159): Or, according to the other reading, which is equally well supported, monogenh;" qeov" , one who is only-begotten God.

(294; original 1160): Acts 20:28. Some of the best authorities (a, B, Vulg., etc.) read "church of God." So also Westcott and Hort, and the English Revision; but the American Committee prefers, with Tischendorf, the reading tou' kurivou, which is supported by A, C, D, E, etc., and suits better in this connection. Paul often speaks of "the church of God," but nowhere of "the blood of God." Possibly, as Dr. Hort suggests, uiJou' may have dropped out in a very early copy after tou' ijdivou. See a full discussion by Dr. Abbot, in "Bibl. Sacra" for 1876, pp. 313 sqq. (for kurivou), and* by Westcott and Hort, Greek Test., II., Notes, pp. 98 sqq. (for qeou').

(295; original 1161): For a fine analysis of the Epistle, I refer to Braune’s Com. in the Lange Series (translated by Dr. Riddle). He adopts a twofold, Stier and Alford a threefold (trinitarian) division. See also Dr. Riddle’s clear analysis in Schaff’s Popular Com. on the New Test., III. (1882). p. 355. I. Doctrinal Part, chs. 1-3: The church, the mystical body of Christ, chosen, redeemed, and united in Christ. II. Practical Part. chs. 4-6: Therefore, let all the members of the church walk in unity, in love, in newness of life, in the armor of God. But we should remember that the Epistle is not strictly systematic, and the doctrinal expositions and practical exhortations interlace each other.

(296; original 1162): ejn jEfevsw' is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. Marcion retained the Epistle under the title "To the Laodicenes," as Tertullian reports. Dr. Hort says: "Transcriptional evidence strongly supports the testimony of documents against ejn jEfevsw'." The arguments of Meyer and of Woldemar Schmidt (in the fifth ed. of Meyer on Colossians) in favor of the words are not conclusive.

(297; original 1163): This was already the view of Marcion in the second century. Meyer, however, in loc., insists that another letter is meant, which was lost, like one to the Corinthians. The apocryphal Ep. to the Laodiceans (in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., I. 873 sqq.), consisting of twenty verses, is a mere fabrication from the other Epistles of Paul. It was forbidden by the Second Council of Nicaea (787).

(298; original 1164): But the very reverse of churchy. Nothing can be further removed from the genius of Paul than that narrow, mechanical, and pedantic churchiness which sticks to the shell of outward forms and ceremonies, and mistakes them for the kernel within.

(299; original 1165): Eph. 5:14 may be a part of a primitive hymn after the type of Hebrew parallelism:

"Awake thou that sleepest,

Arise thou from the dead

And Christ will shine upon thee."

(300; original 1166): In literal English translation such a sentence is unquestionably heavy and cumbrous. Unsympathetic critics, like De Wette, Baur, Renan, Holtzmann, characterize the style of Ephesians as verbose, diffuse, overloaded, monotonous, and repetitious. But Grotius, a first-class classical scholar, describes it (in his Preface) as "rerum sublimitatem adaequans verbis sublimioribus quam ulla habuit unquam lingua humana." Harless asserts that not a single word in the Epistle is superfluous, and has proved it in his very able commentary. Alford (III. 25) remarks: "As the wonderful effect of the Spirit of inspiration on the mind of man is nowhere in Scripture more evident than in this Epistle, so, to discern those things of the Spirit, is the spiritual mind here more than anywhere required." He contrasts, under this view, the commentaries of De Wette and Stier, putting rather too high an estimate on the latter. Maurice (Unity of the N. T., p. 535): "Every one must be conscious of an overflowing fulness in the style of this Epistle, as if the apostle’s mind could not contain the thoughts that were at work in him, as if each one that he uttered had a luminous train before it and behind it, from which it could not disengage itself." Bishop Ellicott says that the difficulties of the first chapter are "so great and so deep that the most exact language and the most discriminating analysis are too poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound." Dr. Riddle: "It is the greatness of the Epistle which makes it so difficult; the thought seems to struggle with the words, which seem insufficient to convey the transcendent idea."

(301; original 1167): Lardner, Credner, Mayerhoff, Hofmann, and Reuss reverse the order on the ground of Col. 4:16, which refers to "the Epistle from Laodicea," assuming that this is the encyclical Epistle to the Ephesians. But Paul may have done that by anticipation. On the other hand, the kai; uJmei'" (that ye also as well as those to whom I have just written) in Eph. 6:21, as compared with Col. 4:7, justifies the opposite conclusion (as Harless shows, Com., p. lix). Reuss thinks that in writing two letters on the same topic the second is apt to be the shorter. But the reverse is more frequent, as a second edition of a book is usually larger than the first. De Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Holtzmann regard Ephesians as an enlarged recasting (Umarbeitung and Ueberarbeitung)of Colossians by a pupil of Paul.

(302; original 1168): Annot. ad Col. 4:16.

(303; original 1169): DeWette first attacked Ephesians as a verbose expansion (wortreiche Erweiterung)of the genuine Colossians by a pupil of Paul. See his Introd. to the New Test. (1826, 6th ed. by Messner and Lünemann, 1860, pp. 313 sqq., and especially his Com. on Eph., 1843 and 1847). He based his doubts chiefly on the apparent dependence of Ephesians on Colossians, and could not appreciate the originality and depth of Ephesians. Mayerhoff first attacked Colossians (1838) as a post-Pauline abridgment of Ephesians which he regarded as genuine. Baur attacked both (1845), as his pupil Schwegler did (1846), and assigned them to an anti-Gnostic writer of the later Pauline school. He was followed by Hilgenfeld (1870, 1873, and 1875). Hitzig proposed a middle view (1870), that a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians was enlarged and adapted by the same author who wrote Ephesians, and this view was elaborately carried out by Holtzmann with an attempt to reconstruct the Pauline original (Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, Leipzig, 1872). But the assumption of another Epistle of Paul to the Colossians is a pure critical fiction. History knows only of one such Epistle. Pfleiderer (1873, Paulinismus, p. 370 sq. and 434) substantially agrees with Holtzmann, but assumes two different authors for the two Epistles. He regards Ephesians as an advance from old Paulinism to the Johannean theology. Renan and Ewald admit Colossians to be genuine, but surrender Ephesians, assigning it, however, to an earlier date than the Tülbingen critics (Ewald to a.d. 75 or 80). On the other hand, the genuineness of both Epistles has been ably defended by Bleek, Meyer, Woldemar Schmidt, Braune, Weiss, Alford, Farrar. Bishop Lightfoot, in his Com. on Col., promises to take the question of genuineness up in the Com. on Ephes., which, however, has not yet appeared. Dr. Samuel Davidson, in the revised edition of his Introduction to the Study of the New Test. (1882, vol. II. 176 sqq. and 205 sqq.), reproduces the objections of the Tübingen critics, and adds some new ones which are not very creditable to his judgment, e.g., Paul could not warn the Ephesians to steal no more (Eph. 4:28), and not to be drunk (5:18), because "the Christians of Asia Minor had no tendency to drunken excesses, but rather to ascetic abstinence from wine; and the advice given to Timothy might perhaps have been more suitable: ’Drink a little wine’" (p. 213). But what then becomes of the Epistle to the Corinthians who tolerated an incestuous person in their midst and disgraced the love feasts by intemperance? What of the Epistle to the Romans which contains a similar warning against drunkenness (Rom. 13:13)? And what could induce a pseudo-Paul to slander the church at Ephesus, if it was exceptionally pure?

(304; original 1170): Farrar (II. 602): "We might well be amazed if the first hundred years after the death of Christ produced a totally unknown writer who, assuming the name of Paul, treats the mystery which it was given him to reveal with a masterly power which the apostle himself rarely equalled, and most certainly never surpassed. Let any one study the remains of the Apostolic Fathers, and he may well be surprised at the facility with which writers of the Tübingen school, and their successors, assume the existence of Pauls who lived unheard of and died unknown, though they were intellectually and spiritually the equals, if not the superiors, of St. Paul himself!"

(305; original 1171): See the quotations in Charteris’s Canonicity, pp. 237 sqq and 247 sqq.

(306; original 1172): This is DeWette’s chief argument. See his table of parallel passages in Einleitung, § 146a (pp. 313-318 of the sixth ed.).

(307; original 1173): Such as aivscrologiva (Col. 3:8), ajntanaplhrovw (1:24), eijphvopoievw (1:20), ejqeloqrhskeiva (2:23), piqanologiva (2:4); ta; ejpouravnia (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12),ta; pveumatikav (6:12), kosmokravtore" (6:12), polupoivkilo" sofiva (3:10). Even the word a[fesi" (Col. 1:14 and Eph. 1:7) for pavresi" (Rom. 3:25) has been counted among the strange terms, as if Paul had not known before of the remission of sins. Holtzmann has most carefully elaborated the philological argument. But the veteran Reuss (I. 112) treats it as futile, and even Davidson must admit (II 219) that "the sentiments (of Ephesians) are generally Pauline, as well as the diction," though he adds that "both betray marks of another writer."

(308; original 1174): Baur, Schwegler, and Hilgenfeld (Einleit., 652 sq.).

(309; original 1175): Eus., H. E., III. 32: "The same author [Hegesippus], relating the events of the times, also says that ’the church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin (parqevno" kaqara; kai; ajdiavfqoro" e[menen hJ ejkklhsiva); whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in darkness (ejn ajdhvlw/ pou skovtei); but when the sacred choir of the apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also arose the combination of godless error through the fraud of false teachers. These also, as there was none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame (gumnh'/ loipo;n h[dh th'/ kefalh'/), to preach their falsely so-called gnosis against the gospel of truth.’ Such is the statement of Hegesippus." Comp. the notes on the passage by Heinichen in his ed. of Euseb., Tome III., pp. 100-103.

(310; original 1176): The same Hegesippus, in Eus., IV. 22, places the rise of the heresies in the Palestinian church immediately after the death of James, and traces some of them back to Simon Magus. He was evidently familiar with the Pastoral Epistles, and borrowed from them the terms yeudwvnumo" gnw'si" , eJterodidavskaloi., uJgih;" kanwvn.

(311; original 1177): The critical school of Rationalism began in Germany with Semler of Halle (1725-1791), in the middle of the eighteenth century, and culminated in the Tübingen School of our own age.

(312; original 1178): Augustus conferred upon Philippi the special privilege of the "jus Italicum," which made it a miniature likeness of the Roman people, with "praetors" and "lictors," and the other titles of the Roman magistrates. Under this character the city appears in the narrative of the Acts (16:12 sqq.), where "the pride and privilege of Roman citizenship confront us at every turn." See Lightfoot, pp. 50 sqq., Braune, and Lumby.

(313; original 1179): Lightfoot, l.c., p. 53.

(314; original 1180): caivrete "combines a parting benediction with an exhortation to cheerfulness. It is neither ’farewell’ alone, nor ’rejoice’ alone" (Lightfoot).

(315; original 1181): Bengel:"Summa Epistolae: Gaudeo, gaudete." Farrar (II. 423): "If any one compare the spirit of the best-known classic writers in their adversity with that which was habitual to the far deeper wrongs and far deadlier sufferings of St. Paul—if he will compare the Epistle to the Philippians with the ’Tristia’ of Ovid, the letters of Cicero from exile, or the treatise which Seneca dedicated to Polybius from his banishment in Corsica—he may see, if he will, the difference which Christianity has made in the happiness of man."

(316; original 1182): The kenosis controversy between the Lutherans of Giessen and Tübingen in the early part of the seventeenth century, and the more extensive kenosis literature in the nineteenth century (Thomasius, Liebner, Gess, Godet, etc.).

(317; original 1183): Dr. Braune, in Lange’s Com., p. 4.

(318; original 1184): The arguments of Baur and Swegler have been set aside by Lünemann (1847), Brückner (1848), Resch (1850), Hilgenfeld (1871), and Reuss (1875); those of Holsten (1875 and 1876) by P. W. Schmidt, Neutestam, Hyperkritik, 1880. Comp. Holzmann in Hilgenfeld's "Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol.," 1881, 98 sqq.

(319; original 1185): Dr. H. B. Hackett, who visited the spot, corrects the false statement of Meyer and other commentators that there is still a village (Felibah, or Filibidjek, as Farrar says) on the former site. See his translation of Braune on Phil., p. 6.

(320; original 1186): Lightfoot, p. 64. But almost the same sad tale may be told of the churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, under the withering rule of the Mohammedan Turks. Even Ephesus, where both Paul and John labored so successfully, is little more than a heap of ruins.

(321; original 1187): A worthless tradition makes him bishop of Colossae and a martyr in the Neronian persecution. So Onesimus and almost every important man in the apostolic church was turned into a bishop and martyr. On the names in the Epistle, see Lightfoot’s Com. on Col. and Philem., pp. 372 sqq.

(322; original 1188): Hence the good-humored play on the meaning of the word, Philem. 11, a[crhsto", eu[crhsto" ,"unprofitable to thee, but now profitable to thee and to me;" and the play on the name, Philem. 20, ojnaivmhn, "let me have comfort in thee."

(323; original 1189): Philem. 18 seems to describe the actual offence, though the case is stated hypothetically, eij dev ti ... ojfeivlei (a mild word for e[kleyen, stole). The apostle would not wound the feelings of the slave, nor irritate the master, and offers himself to discharge the debt.

(324; original 1190): "The Gospel," says Lightfoot (p. 389), "never directly attacks slavery as an institution: the apostles never command the liberation of slaves as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St. Paul in this Epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word ’emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take the runaway slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave, but as a brother; to treat him with the same consideration, the same love, which he entertains for the apostle himself to whom he owes everything. In fact he tells him to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this one thing he does not directly enjoin. St. Paul’s treatment of this individual case is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity toward slavery in general."

(325; original 1191): For these conflicting legends, see the Acts Sanctorum Boll., XVI. Febr., II. 857 sqq.

(326; original 1192): As Hackett (in Lange), Lightfoot, Lumby, and others.

(327; original 1193): See Lightfoot, p. 383, and the Speaker’s Com. New Test., III. 829.

(328; original 1194): "Es wird hier,"he says (Paulus, II. 88, second ed.), "im Christenthum die schöne Idee aufgefasst, dass die durch dasselbe mit einander Verbundenen in einer wahren Wesensgemeinschaft mit einander stehen, so dass der Eine in dem Anderen sein eigenes Selbst erkennt, sich mit ihm völlig Eins weiss und einer für alle Ewigkeit dauernden Vereinigung angehört."Hilgenfeld admits the genuineness, saying (p. 331): "Der ganze Brief trägt das Gepräge der einfachen Wahrheit an sich und verräth auch in den Wortspielen, Philem. 11, 20, die Schreibart des Paulus."

(329; original 1195): For biographical details see the Bible Dictionaries and Commentaries.

(330; original 1196): See the testimonies in Kirchhofer’s Quellensammlung, as translated and enlarged by Charteris, Canonicity, 255-268. Renan admits the resemblance between the First Epistle of Clemens Romanus (c. 44) and Second Timothy (e.g., in the use of the word ajnavlusi" for death), but assumes that both borrowed from a common source, the favorite language of the church of Rome, and also that the forger of the Pastoral Epistles probably made use of some authentic letters of Paul. L’Église chrét., p. 95: "Quelques passages de ces trois építres sont d’ailleurs si beaux, qu’on peut se demander si le faussaire n’avait pas entre les mains quelques billets authentiques de Paul."

(331; original 1197): Baur and Hilgenfeld (Einleit., p. 764) bring them down to 150 (after Marcion, 140), and date them from Rome. But this is impossible, and rests on a false exegesis. Pfleiderer, of the same Tübingen school, puts 2 Timothy in the age of Trajan, the other two in the age of Hadrian. He, moreover, regards the passages 2 Tim 1:15-18 and 4:9-21 as fragments of a genuine Epistle of Paul. Comp. also Holtzmann, p. 271.

(332; original 1198): So Schrader, Wieseler, Reythmayr, formerly also Reuss (in his Gesch., etc., 5th ed., 1875, but withdrawn in his French Com. on the Pauline Epp., 1878).

(333; original 1199): So Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ussher, Pearson, Tillemont, Neander, Bleek, Ruffet, Lange, Farrar, Plumptre, Lightfoot, etc.

(334; original 1200): A release of Paul from the first Roman captivity and a visit to Spain is also asserted by such critics as Ewald and Renan.

(335; original 1201): The ajntiqevsei" th'" yeudwnuvmou gnwvsew"(" oppositions" in the E. V. and Revision) are understood by the best exegetes to mean simply the doctrinal theses which the heretics opposed to the sound doctrine (comp. 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 1:9). So DeWette, Matthies, and Wiesinger. Hofmann and Huther identify them with kenofwnivai and logomacivai (1 Tim. 5:4). Holtzmann (p. 131) likewise rejects Baur’s interpretation.

(336; original 1202): Holtzmann, l.c., p. 127; also Lipsius, Schenkel, Pfleiderer.

(337; original 1203): See above, § 96 (this vol.)

(338; original 1204): Such is the ingenious reasoning of Baur and Renan (L’Egl. chrét., pp. 85 and 94 sqq.). Comp. the discussion of details by Holtzmann, l.c., ch. XI., pp. 190 sqq.

(339; original 1205): 1 Tim. 1:3; 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:9, 21; Tit. 1:5; 8:12. See above, § 61 (this vol.) The fact is acknowledged by impartial episcopal writers, as Dean Alford, Bishop Lightfoot, Dean Stanley, and Dean Plumptre (in Schaff’s Com. N. T., III. 552). I will quote from Canon Farrar (St. Paul. II. 417) "If the Pastoral Epistles contained a clear defence of the Episcopal system of the second century, this alone would be sufficient to prove their spuriousness; but the total absence of anything resembling it is one of the strongest proofs that they belong to the apostolic age. Bishop and presbyter are still synonymous, as they are throughout the New Testament ... Timothy and Titus exercise functions which would be now called episcopal; but they are not called ’bishops.’ Their functions were temporary, and they simply act as authoritative delegates of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Nor is there any trace of exalted pretensions in the overseers whom they appoint. The qualifications required of them are almost exclusively moral." Comp. also some good remarks of Prof. Wace, in the Speaker’s Com. on the New Test., III. 764, where it is justly said that the church polity in the Pastoral Epistles represents an intermediate stage between the Presbyterian episcopacy of the earlier apostolic period and the post-apostolic episcopacy.

(340; original 1206): This philological argument was begun by Schleiermacher, but confined to First Timothy, and was carried out, with reference to all three Epistles, by Holtzmann, l.c., ch. VI., pp. 84-118. I will give his results. The Pastoral Epistles have, in all, 897 words. Of these there are 169 Hapaxlegomena not found in the New Testament, namely:

(a) 74 in First Timothy, such as ajgaqoergei'n. aJgneiva, ajdhlovth", ajndrapodisthv" , a[drofovno", ejterodidaskalei'n, qeosevbeia, katastolhv, plevgma, orismov" , filarguriva, yeudolovgo", yeudwvnumo" .

(b) 46 in Second Timothy, e.g ., ajgwghv, ajqlei'n, bevltion, membravna, ojrqotomei'n, pragmateiva, filovqeo".

(c) 28 in Titus, e, g., aiJretikov" , ajkatavgnwsto", ajfqoriva, ajyeudhv" , kalodidavskalo", mataiolovgo" , presbuvti", swthvrio" , filavgaqo", fivlandro" (palingenesiva, Tit. 3:5, occurs also Matt. 19:28, but in a different sense).

(d) 21 common to two or three Past. Epp., e g, diavbolo", (as adjective), ajnovsio" , didaktikov", kenofwniva, nomivmw" , paraqhvkh, genealogiva, eujsebw'".

(341; original 1207): Farrar (II. 611) affirms that there are no less than 111 peculiar terms in Romans, 180 in Corinthians, 57 in Galatians, 54 in Phillipians, 6 in Philemon. Luke’s peculiar vocabulary is especially rich; he uses, as Holtzmann observes (p. 96), 34 words in common with the Pastoral Epistles, and has, besides, 82 words not found in Paul.

(342; original 1208): Farrer, II. 611.

(343; original 1209): Pfleiderer (Protestanten-Bibel. p. 834) says: "Die kirchliche Lehrrichtung der Hirtenbriefe ist eine von der altpaulinischen sehr weit verschiedene. Von den eigenthümlich paulinischen Lehren über Gesetz und Evangelium, über Werke und Glauben finden sich in unseren Briefen nur abgeblasste Reste, die fast wie feststehende überliefte Formeln klingen, während das Glaubensbewusstsein ein anderes geworden ist."In this harsh and unjust judgment the fact is overlooked that the three Epistles are pastoral and not doctrinal Epistles.

(344; original 1210): Such passages as 1 Tim. 1:15, 17; 2:1, 4-6, 8; 3:2, 16; 4:1, 4, 7, 10, 15; 5:8, 17, 18, 22; 6:6, 9-12; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2:11, 12, 19, 22; 8:12, 16, 17; 4:2, 6-8; Tit. 1:7, 15; 2:11; 8:5, 6.

(345; original 1211): See notes at the end of the section.

(346; original 1212): Heb. 9:8, "while as the first tabernacle is yet standing" (th'" prwvth" skhnh'" ejcouvsh" stavsin); 9:6, "the priests go in continually" (eijsivasin, not went in, as in the E. V.); 8:4; 13:10; 6:8; 8:13; 10:25, 27; 12:27. Those who assign the composition to a time after the destruction of Jerusalem, deprive the present tenses of their natural import and proper effect.

(347; original 1213): The charge of partial ignorance of the Jewish ritual is unfounded, and can therefore not be made an argument either for or against the Pauline authorship. In the genuine text of Heb. 10:11, the high priest is not mentioned, but the priest (iJereuv"), and in 7:27 the high priest is not asserted to offer daily sacrifice, but to need daily repentance. The altar of incense is placed in the holy of holies, 9:4; but this seems to have been a current opinion, which is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of Baruch. See Harnack in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, p. 572, and W. R. Smith in " Enc. Brit.," xi., 606.

(348; original 1214): See Carpzov, Sacrae Exercitationes in Ep. ad Heb. ex Philone Alex. (Helmstadii, 1750); Riehm, l.c., pp. 9 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 384; and Pfleiderer, Paulinismus.

(349; original 1215): The Epistle is called a lovgo" paraklhvsew" , Heb. 13:22; comp. 12:5; 6:18

(350; original 1216): See note II. at the close.

(351; original 1217): So also DeWette, Tholuck, Thiersch, Delitzsch, Lünemann, Riehm, Moll (in Lange’s Com.), Langen, Weiss.

(352; original 1218): So Oecumenius, Lightfoot, Lange; also Grimm (sub verbo): "Omnes de Judaeis sive aramaice sive graece loquentibus Christiani."

(353; original 1219): Ebrard. Moulton, on the contrary, thinks that some other church in Palestine is addressed, and that Jerusalem is excluded by Heb. 2:3.

(354; original 1220): Wieseler (who adds an unlikely reference to the temple of Onias in Leontopolis), Credner, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Reuss, Bunsen, Conybeare and Howson, and Plumptre.

(355; original 1221): Von Hofmann.

(356; original 1222): Wetstein, Alford, Holtzmann, Kurtz, Zahn; also Renan, who thinks (L’Antechrist. p. 211) that the Ep. was written by Barnabas in Ephesus, and addressed to the church in Rome; hence it was first known in Rome.

(357; original 1223): A. B. Davidson (Ep. to the Hebr., 1882, p. 18).

(358; original 1224): Zahn refers Heb. 10:32-34 to the Neronian persecution; but this is excluded by 12:4, "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood" (mevcri ai}mato"). Harnack finds also traces of the Domitian persecution. Still more unlikely.

(359; original 1225): Lardner, Thiersch, Lindsay, Bullock (in Smith’s B. Dict., Am. ed., II., 1028), and others, assign the Epistle to a.d. 63; DeWette, Moll, and Lange to between 62 and 66 (between the death of James and the outbreak of the Jewish war); Ebrard to 62; Wieseler (Chronol, des Ap. Zeitalters, p. 519) to July, 64; Stuart and Tholuck to about 64; Weiss to 65 ("bald nach der Mitte der sechziger Jahre"); Hilgenfeld to between 64 and 66; Davidson (Introd., revised ed., I. 222) to 66; Ewald to 67; Renan and Kay to 65. On the other hand, Zahn gives as the date a.d. 80, Holtzmann and Harnack about 90, Volkmar and Keim, 116-118. These late dates are simply impossible, not only for intrinsic reasons and the allusion to Timothy, but also because Clement of Rome, who wrote about 95, shows a perfect familiarity with Hebrews.

(360; original 1226): The inference of the place from oiJ ajpo; th's jItaliva" Heb. 13:24, is uncertain, since in the epistolary style it may imply that the writer was at that time out of Italy, or in Italy (which would be more distinctly expressed by ejn jItaliva/ oroiJ ejx ). The brethren may have been fugitives from Italy (so Bleek). But the latter view seems more natural, and is defended by Theodoret, who knew Greek as his mother tongue. Tholuck and Ebrard quote the phrases oiJ ajpo; gh'" and oiJ ajpo; qalavssh", travellers by land and sea, and from Polybius, oiJ ajpo; th's jAlexandreiva" basilei'", the Alexandrian kings. Still more to the point is Pseudo-Ignatius Ad. Her. 8, quoted by Zahn (see his ed. of Ign., p. 270, 12): ajspavzontaiv se ... pavnte" oiJ ajpo; Filivppwn ejn cristw'/, o]ten kai; ejpevsteilav soi.

(361; original 1227): The Sinaitic MS. and C have the subscription "to the Hebrews," A adds "from Rome," K "from Italy." Sam. Davidson dates it from Alexandria, Renan from Ephesus, where he thinks Barnabas was at that time with some fugitive Italians, while Timothy was imprisoned perhaps at Corinth (L’Antechrist. p. 210).

(362; original 1228): For the patristic testimonies, I refer to the collection in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 272-288; for a candid and exhaustive discussion of the whole question, to Bleek’s large Com., I., 82-272; also to Alford’s Com., vol iv., Part I., pp. 1-62

(363; original 1229): Von Hofmann (of Erlangen) is almost the only one in Germany; Bishop Wordsworth and Dr. Kay in England. Among the older defenders of the Pauline authorship we mention Owen (1668), Mill (1707), Carpzov (1750), Bengel (1752). Sykes (1755), Andr. Cramer (1757), Storr (1789), and especially the learned and acute Roman Catholic scholar, Hug, in his Einleitung.

(364; original 1230): Dr. Biesenthal has, by a retranslation of the Ep. into Hebrew, endeavored to prove this theory in "Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer,"Leipz., 1878. But, of course, this is no argument any more than Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of the entire New Testament. Such happy phrases as polumerw'" kai; polutrovpw" (Heb.1:1) and e[maqen ejfj w|n e[paqen th;n uJpakohvn (5:8) cannot be reproduced in Hebrew at all.

(365; original 1231): sunqevsei th'" levxew" ejllhnikwtevra. Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.

(366; original 1232): tiv" de; oJ gravya" th;n ejpistolh;n, to; me;n ajlhqe;" qeo;" oi|den.

(367; original 1233): "Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una."

(368; original 1234): Calvin: "Scriptor unum se ex apostolorum discipulis profitetur, quod est a Paulina consuetudine longe alienum." And on Heb. 2:3, "Hic locus indicio est; epistolam a Paulo non fuisse compositam,"etc.

(369; original 1235): As Calvin expresses it: "Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam Paulum esse satis testantur." On this point see especially Riehm’s valuable Lehrbegriff, etc., and the respective sections in the works on the N. T. Theology; also Kurtz’s Com., pp. 24 sqq. The parallelisms which Dr. Kay sets against this argument in the Speaker’s Com., pp. 14 sqq., only prove what nobody denies, the essential agreement of Hebrews with the Pauline Epistles

(370; original 1236): See the proof in Bleek, vol. I. 338-375. Conveniently ignored in the Speaker’s Com., p. 13.

(371; original 1237): Of the other friends of Paul, Timothy is excluded by the reference to him in Heb. 13:23. Mark, Demas, Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Aquila, Jesus Justus have never been brought forward as candidates. Silvanus, or Silas, is favorably mentioned by Böhme, Mynster, and Riehm (890 sqq.), on account of his prominent position, Acts 15:22, 27, 34, 40; 16:19; 1 Pet. 5:12.

(372; original 1238): Tertullian, Ullmann, Wieseler, Thiersch, Ritschl, Renan, Zahn. W. R. Smith (in the "Enc. Brit.") likewise leans to the Barnabas hypothesis.

(373; original 1239): Clement of Alexandria (who, however, regarded Luke only, and wrongly, as translator), Calvin, Grotius, Crell, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Döllinger. Ebrard supposes that Luke wrote the Epistle at the request and in the name of Paul, who suggested the general plan and leading ideas. This is the most plausible form of the Luke hypothesis, but does not account for the doctrinal differences.

(374; original 1240): This linguistic argument has been overdone by Delitzsch and weakened by fanciful or far-fetched analogies. See the strictures of Lünemann, pp. 24-31.

(375; original 1241): Mentioned as a subjective conjecture by Origen (Klhvmh" oJ genovmeno" ejpivskopos JRwmaivwn e[graye th;n ejpistolhvn) alongside with Luke. Renewed by Erasmus and Bisping.

(376; original 1242): Luther, Osiander, Norton, Semler, Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Moll, Kendrick, Alford, Lünemann, Kurtz, Samuel Davidson, A. B. Davidson. The Apollos hypothesis has been the most popular until, within the last few years, Renan, Zahn, and W. Robertson Smith have turned the current again in favor of the Barnabas hypothesis. Riehm, after a full and judicious discussion, wavers between Apollos and Silvanus, but ends with Origen’s modest confession of ignorance (p. 894).

(377; original 1243): Ep. ad Cor., c. 47.

(378; original 1244): jApokavluyis jIhsou' Cristou' Rev. 1:1. The oldest inscription in Cod. a is apokaluyi" iwanou. Later MSS. add tou' aJgivou and tou' qeolovgou, etc.

(379; original 1245): "Tot verba, tot mysteria."—"Niemand weiss, was darinnen steht." Zwingli would take no doctrinal proof-text from Revelation.

(380; original 1246): The amount of nonsense, false chronology, and prophecy which has been put into the Apocalypse is amazing, and explains the sarcastic saying of the Calvinistic, yet vehemently anti-Puritanic preacher, Robert South (Serm. XXIII., vol. I., 377, Philad. ed., 1844), that "the book called the Revelation, the more it is studied, the less it is understood, as generally either finding a man cracked, or making him so." The remark is sometimes falsely attributed to Calvin, but he had great respect for the book, and quotes it freely for doctrinal purposes, though he modestly or wisely abstained from writing a commentary on it.

(381; original 1247): Rev. 4:11; 5:8-14; 7:12-17; 11:15; 14:13; 15:3; 19:1, 2, 6, 7.

(382; original 1248): Herder: "How many passages in the prophets are obscure in their primary historical references, and yet these passages, containing divine truth, doctrine, and consolation, are manna for all hearts and all ages. Should it not be so with the book which is an abstract of almost all prophets and Apostles?"

(383; original 1249): Zur Einleit. in die Offenb. Joh., p. 1. The translation is condensed.

(384; original 1250): Prof. Godet compares the Apocalypse with the Song of Songs, viewed as a dramatic poem, and calls it "the Canticle of the New Testament," as the Song of Songs is "the Apocalypse of the Old." But I cannot see the aptness of this comparison. Eichhorn treated the Apocalypse as a regular drama with a prologue, three acts, and an epilogue.

(385; original 1251): See Lücke, pp. 66-345; Lange, pp. 6 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857); Schürer, N. T’liche Zeitgeschichte (1874), pp. 511-563.

(386; original 1252): Godet (p. 297): "The Apocalypse is the precious vessel in which the treasure of Christian hope has been deposited for all ages of the church, but especially for the church under the cross." Dr. Chambers (p. 15): "The scope of this mysterious book is not to convince unbelievers, nor to illustrate the divine prescience, nor to minister to men’s prurient desire to peer into the future, but to edify the disciples of Christ in every age by unfolding the nature and character of earth’s conflicts, by preparing them for trial as not a strange thing, by consoling them with the prospect of victory, by assuring them of God’s sovereign control over all persons and things, and by pointing them to the ultimate issue when they shall pass through the gates of pearl never more to go out."

(387; original 1253): Comp. § 50, (this vol.).

(388; original 1254): See the testimonies in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 336-357; also Lücke (pp. 419-887), Alford (iv. 198-229), Lee (pp. 405-442), and other commentators.

(389; original 1255): This is the almost unanimous opinion of the Tübingen critics and their sympathizers on the Continent and in England.

(390; original 1256): Comp. Rev. 1:10; 1 Cor. 14:15. See, besides the references mentioned at the head of the section, the testimony of Dr. Weiss, who, in his Leben Jesu (1882), I. 97-101, ably discusses the difference, between the two books, and comes to the conclusion that they are both from the same Apostle John. "Yes" (he says, with reference to a significant concession of Dr. Baur), "the fourth Gospel is ’the spiritualized Apocalypse,’ but not because an intellectual hero of the second century followed the seer of the Apocalypse, but because the Son of Thunder of the Apocalypse had been matured and transfigured by the Spirit and the divine guidance into a mystic, and the flames of his youth had burnt down into the glow of a holy love."

(391; original 1257): The great majority of older commentators, and among the recent ones Elliott, Alford, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Lange, Hofmann, Godet, Lee, Milligan, and Warfield (in Schaff’s "Encycl." III. 2035). I myself formerly advocated the later date, in the Hist. of the Ap. Church (1853), pp. 418 sqq

(392; original 1258): The early date is advocated or accepted by Neander, Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, DeWette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Düsterdieck, Renan, Aubé, Stuart, Davidson, Cowles, Bishop Lightfoot, Westoott, Holtzmann, Weiss; and among earlier writers by Alcasar, Grotius, Hammond, Abauzit, and John Lightfoot.

(393; original 1259): Suetonius, Vespas. c. 1 "Rebellione trium principum et caede incertum diu et quasi vagum imperium suscepit firmavitque tandem gens Flavia."

(394; original 1260): So Bleek (p. 121), Lücke (in the second ed.), Böhmer, Weiss, Düsterdieck (Introd. pp. 55 sqq. and Com. on Rev. 13:3, and 17:7-14).

(395; original 1261): So Ewald, Reuss, Baur, etc. See NOTES below.

(396; original 1262): Comp. ch. vi., pp. 376-402, and especially the most graphic description of those terrible years by Renan, in L’Antechrist, ch. xiv., pp. 320-339, which I would like to transcribe if space permitted. His facts are well supported by heathen and Jewish testimonies especially Tacitus, Suetonius, Strabo, Pliny, Josephus, etc.

(397; original 1263): See Alford, Com. iv., 245 sqq.; Elliott, 4th vol.; Sam. Davidson, Introd. to the N. T., first ed. III. 619, revised ed., vol. II. 297, and Lee, Com. p. 488. Davidson adds a fourth class of "extreme," as distinguished from simple "Futurists," who refer the entire book, including Rev. 2 and 3, to the last times. Lee substitutes with Lücke the term "Historical" for "Continuous," but Historical applies better to the first class called "Preterists." Lee adds (491), as a fourth system, the "Spiritual system," and names Augustin (his "City of God," as the first philosophy of history), J. C. K. von Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Ebrard as its chief defenders. It is the same with what Auberlen calls the reichsgeschichtliche Auslegung.

(398; original 1264): So Herder, in his suggestive book MARAN AQA, das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des N. Testaments Siegel, Riga, 1779. He was preceded in the anti-Jewish explication by Abauzit of Geneva (1730), who assigned the book to the reign of Nero, and Wetstein (1752), and followed by Hartwig (1780) and Züllig. The last, in a learned work on the Apocalypse (Stuttgart, 1834, 2 vols., 1840), refers it exclusively to the Jewish state.

(399; original 1265): a = 1, b = 2, r = 100, a = 1, x = 60, a = 1, " = 200; total, 365. A vast number of engraved stones, called " Abraxas-gems," are still extant. The origin of Abraxas is usually ascribed to Basilides or his followers.

(400; original 1266): I = 10 + h = 8 + s = 200 + o = 70 + u = 400 + s = 200, total ijhsous = 888. Comp. Barnabas, Ep. c. 9; and the Sibylline Books, I. 324-331.

(401; original 1267): These pious absurdities are surpassed by the rationalistic absurdity of Volkmar, who (in his Com. on the Apoc., 1862, p. 197) carries the imaginary hostility of John to Paul so far as to refer "the false prophet" (Rev. 16:13; 19:20) to the Apostle of the Gentiles, because he taught (Rom. 13) that every soul should be subject to the then reigning Nero (ie., the beast)! Even Hilgenfeld (Einleit. p. 436) and Samuel Davidson (I. 291), while agreeing with Volkmar in the Nero-hypothesis, protest against such impious nonsense.

(402; original 1268): See Lee, Com. p. 687. Adam Clarke regarded this unanswerable.

(403; original 1269): Adv. Haer., v. 30, §§3 and 4. Josephus, from prudential regard to his patrons, the Flavian emperors, withheld the interpretation of the fourth beast and the stone cut out of the mountain in Daniel’s vision. Ant. x. 10, § 4. On which Havercamp remarks: "Nor is this to be wondered at that he would not now meddle with things future; for he had no mind to provoke the Romans by speaking of the destruction of that city, which they called the eternal city."

(404; original 1270): If they go farther, they discover the anti-Christian beast in the mediaeval German (the so-called "Holy Roman") empire in conflict with the papacy, in the Napoleonic imperialism, the Russian Czarism, the modern German empire (the anti-papal Cultur-Kampf ), in fact in every secular power which is hostile to the interests of the Roman hierarchy and will "not go to Canossa." This would be the very reverse of the old Protestant interpretation.

(405; original 1271): D = 500 + I = 1 + C = 100 + L = 50 + V = 5 + V = 5 = 666.

(406; original 1272): The numerical value of Kaisarsebaston is = 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100 + 200 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 6 + 70 + 50, in all 666.

(407; original 1273): In the essay above quoted, p. 388, and in the article Revelation in Johnson’s "Cyclopaedia," III. 1606 sqq.

脚注

Best guess 对照表

正文及中文脚注中带上标 * 的外文为 best guess，尚未逐项核实；原始字串保留如下。

原字串	Best guess	语言	出现位置	说明
zw'a	ζῶα	Greek	正文第 96 段	依旧字体及活物语境推定。
qhriva	θηρία	Greek	正文第 96 段	依旧字体及兽的对比推定。
ejpiouvsio"	ἐπιούσιος	Greek	正文第 202 段	主祷文用词，依编码复原。
wjtivon	ὠτίον	Greek	正文第 202 段	耳的指小词，依编码复原。
duskovlw"	δυσκόλως	Greek	正文第 202 段	依编码及太19:23语境推定。
dihvghsin	διήγησιν	Greek	正文第 326 段	路1:1的叙述一词。
lovgia	λόγια	Greek	正文第 327 段	依原串重音位置复原。
dihghvsei"	διηγήσεις	Greek	正文第 330 段	叙述的复数，依编码推定。
hJ basileiva tw'n oujranw'n	ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν	Greek	正文第 350 段	天国的希腊文，依编码复原。
hJ basileiva tou' qeou'	ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ	Greek	正文第 350 段	与前项对照，依编码复原。
logivwn kuriakw'n ejxhvghsi"¼	λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις	Greek	正文第 369 段	书名依编码复原，去除损坏括号。
logiva	λογία	Greek	正文第 370 段	依原串保留重音位置，不改为λόγια。
hjrmhvneuse	ἠρμήνευσε	Greek	正文第 375 段	依原串复原，保留其平气符。
uJphrevth"	ὑπηρέτης	Greek	正文第 387 段	助手一词，依编码复原。
eJrmhneuth;" Pevtrou genovmeno"¼	ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος	Greek	正文第 391 段	依帕皮亚引文及编码推定，去除坏括号。
»ajkribw'" e[grayen	ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν	Greek	正文第 391 段	依编码复原，去除损坏的前括号。
ta;xei	τάξει	Greek	正文第 391 段	按次序的与格；原重音疑损坏。
gavr	γάρ	Greek	正文第 424 段	可16:8末词，依编码复原。
a	א	Hebrew	正文第 427 段	西奈抄本通常以希伯来字母aleph标记。
kata mapkon	κατα μαρκον	Greek	正文第 427 段	卷末题记，保留原串无重音形式。
o{"	ὅς	Greek	正文第 431 段	提前3:16异读，依编码推定。
prwvth/ sabbavtou	πρώτῃ σαββάτου	Greek	正文第 432 段	依编码复原与格及下标ι。
th'/ mia'/ tw'n sabbavtwn	τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων	Greek	正文第 432 段	去除排版星号，复原下标ι。
poreuvomai	πορεύομαι	Greek	正文第 432 段	依旧字体编码推定。
tevlo"	τέλος	Greek	正文第 434 段	经课结束标记，依编码复原。
ejfobou'nto gavr	ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ	Greek	正文第 438 段	可16:8末句，依编码复原。
tevlo"	τέλος	Greek	正文第 447 段	经课结束标记，依编码复原。
tevlo"	τέλος	Greek	正文第 447 段	同段重复的结束标记。
gavr	γάρ	Greek	正文第 447 段	依编码复原可16:8末词。
eujdokiva"	εὐδοκίας	Greek	正文第 450 段	上下文明指属格，依编码复原。
eujdokiva	εὐδοκία	Greek	正文第 450 段	上下文明指主格，依编码复原。
meta; tw'n qhrivwn	μετὰ τῶν θηρίων	Greek	正文第 543 段	与野兽同在，依编码复原。
bivblo" genevsew"	βίβλος γενέσεως	Greek	正文第 552 段	太1:1开头，依编码复原。
ajrch tou' eujaggelivou	ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου	Greek	正文第 552 段	可1:1开头，推补原串缺失重音。
a{pax legovmena	ἅπαξ λεγόμενα	Greek	正文第 553 段	独见词术语，依编码复原。
livmnh	λίμνη	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
qavlassa	θάλασσα	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
nomikov"	νομικός	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
nomodidavskalo"	νομοδιδάσκαλος	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
grammateuv"	γραμματεύς	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
to; eijrhmevnon	τὸ εἰρημένον	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
rjhqevn	ῥηθέν	Greek	正文第 556 段	依词形及引文语境推定粗气符。
nu'n	νῦν	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
a[rti	ἄρτι	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
eJspevra	ἑσπέρα	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ojyiva	ὀψία	Greek	正文第 556 段	依旧字体编码推定。
oJ qeov"	ὁ θεός	Greek	正文第 667 段	保留原文有冠词的形式。
qeov"	θεός	Greek	正文第 667 段	保留与前项对照的无冠词形式。
shmei'a	σημεῖα	Greek	正文第 673 段	依旧字体编码推定。
e[rga	ἔργα	Greek	正文第 673 段	依旧字体编码推定。
kaiv	καί	Greek	正文第 690 段	依旧字体编码推定。
dev	δέ	Greek	正文第 690 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ou\|n	οὖν	Greek	正文第 690 段	依虚词语境推定平气符及曲音。
i{na	ἵνα	Greek	正文第 690 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ou\|n¼	οὖν	Greek	正文第 690 段	同前项虚词，去除坏括号。
a[ra	ἄρα	Greek	正文第 690 段	推理虚词，依编码复原。
i{na	ἵνα	Greek	正文第 690 段	目的虚词，依编码复原。
metavnoia	μετάνοια	Greek	正文第 691 段	依旧字体编码推定。
pivsti"	πίστις	Greek	正文第 691 段	依旧字体编码推定。
pisteuvein	πιστεύειν	Greek	正文第 691 段	依编码保留不定式。
suvn tw' ajnqupavtw/ Sergivw/ Pauvlw/	σύν τῷ ἀνθυπάτῳ Σεργίῳ Παύλῳ	Greek	正文第 834 段	依徒13:7语境复原与格，保留σύν重音。
ajntistravthgo"	ἀντιστράτηγος	Greek	正文第 834 段	依旧字体编码推定。
presbuvth"	πρεσβύτης	Greek	正文第 834 段	依原串保留词形，不按使节释义改词。
ajnquvpato"	ἀνθύπατος	Greek	正文第 834 段	依旧字体编码推定。
strathgo;" or hJgemwvn	στρατηγὸς or ἡγεμών	Greek	正文第 834 段	复原两词，保留英文连接词。
u{pato"	ὕπατος	Greek	正文第 834 段	依旧字体编码推定。
Gallivwno" ajnqupavtou o[nto" th'" Acaiva"	Γαλλίωνος ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος τῆς Ἀχαίας	Greek	正文第 835 段	依编码及徒18:12语境推定。
kolwvnia	κολώνια	Greek	正文第 837 段	拉丁借词，依编码复原。
ajnquvpato"	ἀνθύπατος	Greek	正文第 841 段	依旧字体编码推定。
grammateuv"	γραμματεύς	Greek	正文第 841 段	依旧字体编码推定。
jAsiarcaiv	Ἀσιαρχαί	Greek	正文第 841 段	依原串保留复数及重音。
Pau'lo" genovmeno: mevgisto": uJpogrammov"	Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός	Greek	正文第 883 段	革利免引文；冒号疑为词尾ς损坏。
ejn th'/ parousiva/	ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ	Greek	正文第 917 段	去除夹入的强调标记，复原与格。
e[comen	ἔχομεν	Greek	正文第 941 段	保留直陈式异读，与下项区别。
e[cwmen	ἔχωμεν	Greek	正文第 941 段	保留虚拟式异读，与上项区别。
a{lusi"	ἅλυσις	Greek	正文第 943 段	锁链一词，依编码复原。
ei'kw;n tou' qeou' tou' ajoravtou	εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου	Greek	正文第 966 段	西1:15措辞，首词气符疑损坏。
swmatikw'"	σωματικῶς	Greek	正文第 966 段	依旧字体编码推定。
sunevsthken	συνέστηκεν	Greek	正文第 966 段	依旧字体编码推定。
plhvrh"¼	πλήρης	Greek	正文第 967 段	依编码复原，去除坏括号。
»ejk tou' plhrwvmato" aujtou'	ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ	Greek	正文第 967 段	依编码复原，去除坏括号。
prwtovtoko" pavsh" ktivsew"	πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως	Greek	正文第 967 段	依旧字体编码推定。
prwtovktisto"	πρωτόκτιστος	Greek	正文第 967 段	保留与首生者对照的词形。
oJ monogenh;" uiJov"	ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός	Greek	正文第 967 段	依旧字体编码推定。
to; plhvrwma	τὸ πλήρωμα	Greek	正文第 970 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ta; ejpouravnia	τὰ ἐπουράνια	Greek	正文第 986 段	依旧字体编码推定。
a{gioi	ἅγιοι	Greek	正文第 1004 段	依旧字体编码推定。
aJgiasmevnoi	ἁγιασμένοι	Greek	正文第 1004 段	依旧字体编码推定。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	正文第 1006 段	依旧字体编码推定。
yeudwvnumo"	ψευδώνυμος	Greek	正文第 1006 段	依旧字体编码推定。
katatomhv	κατατομή	Greek	正文第 1013 段	保留与割礼相对的双关词。
peritomhv	περιτομή	Greek	正文第 1013 段	依旧字体编码推定。
kevnwsi"	κένωσις	Greek	正文第 1019 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajstei'o"	ἀστεῖος	Greek	正文第 1033 段	文雅之意，依编码复原。
f-d’oeuvre,	chef-d’œuvre,	Unknown	正文第 1033 段	法文杰作一词疑缺chef词首；语言选项无French。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	正文第 1054 段	依旧字体编码推定。
yeudwvnumo"	ψευδώνυμος	Greek	正文第 1054 段	依旧字体编码推定。
nomodidavskaloi	νομοδιδάσκαλοι	Greek	正文第 1055 段	依旧字体编码推定。
jIoudai>koi mu'qoi	Ἰουδαϊκοὶ μῦθοι	Greek	正文第 1055 段	依编码复原分音符，推补形容词重音。
mavcai nomikaiv	μάχαι νομικαί	Greek	正文第 1055 段	依旧字体编码推定。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	正文第 1063 段	依旧字体编码推定。
didaskaliva	διδασκαλία	Greek	正文第 1063 段	依旧字体编码推定。
yeudwvnumo"	ψευδώνυμος	Greek	正文第 1063 段	依旧字体编码推定。
uJgiaivnousa	ὑγιαίνουσα	Greek	正文第 1063 段	依旧字体编码推定。
eJrmhneiva	ἑρμηνεία	Greek	正文第 1075 段	依旧字体编码推定。
uJpovstasi"	ὑπόστασις	Greek	正文第 1081 段	依旧字体编码推定。
e[legco"	ἔλεγχος	Greek	正文第 1081 段	依旧字体编码推定。
eij ... povsw/ ma'llon	εἰ ... πόσῳ μᾶλλον	Greek	正文第 1085 段	依编码复原，保留省略号。
desmoi'" mou	δεσμοῖς μου	Greek	正文第 1104 段	保留作者所讨论的捆锁异读。
toi'" desmivoi"	τοῖς δεσμίοις	Greek	正文第 1104 段	保留与前项对照的异读。
uiJo;" paraklhvsew"	υἱὸς παρακλήσεως	Greek	正文第 1114 段	依旧字体编码推定。
lovgo" paraklhvsew"	λόγος παρακλήσεως	Greek	正文第 1114 段	依旧字体编码推定。
Pro;s JEbraivou"	Πρὸς Ἑβραίους	Greek	正文第 1124 段	书信题名，依编码复原。
ajgenealovghto"	ἀγενεαλόγητος	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajmhvtwr	ἀμήτωρ	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajpavtwr	ἀπάτωρ	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajpauvgasma	ἀπαύγασμα	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
aijsqhthvrion	αἰσθητήριον	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajkroqivnion	ἀκροθίνιον	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
eujperivstato"	εὐπερίστατος	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
eu\	εὖ	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依词源说明推定曲音及平气符。
periivsthmi	περιίστημι	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
kritikov"	κριτικός	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
hJ mevllousa oijkoumevnh	ἡ μέλλουσα οἰκουμένη	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
mesiteuvein	μεσιτεύειν	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依编码保留不定式。
metriopaqei'n	μετριοπαθεῖν	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依编码保留不定式。
oJrkwmosiva	ὁρκωμοσία	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
parapikraivnein	παραπικραίνειν	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依编码保留不定式。
parapikrasmov"	παραπικρασμός	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
polumerw'"	πολυμερῶς	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
polutrovpw"	πολυτρόπως	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
provdromo"	πρόδρομος	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
sunepimarturei'n	συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依编码保留不定式。
trachlivzein	τραχηλίζειν	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依编码保留不定式。
tetrachlismevna	τετραχηλισμένα	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
uJpostasi"	ὑπόστασις	Greek	正文第 1125 段	据同词前文推补缺失重音。
carakthvr	χαρακτήρ	Greek	正文第 1125 段	依旧字体编码推定。
aijdwv"	αἰδώς	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
a[naqewrevw	ἀναθεωρέω	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依词形推定首字母为平气符而非重音。
ajnupovtakto"	ἀνυπότακτος	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajpeivqeia	ἀπείθεια	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajpovlousi"	ἀπόλαυσις	Greek	正文第 1126 段	来11:25及提前6:17用词，原串ου疑误作αυ。
ajfilavrguro"	ἀφιλάργυρος	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
e[ndiko"	ἔνδικος	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ejnerghv"	ἐνεργής	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ejfavpax	ἐφάπαξ	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
kosmikov"	κοσμικός	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
mimhthv"	μιμητής	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
nekrovw	νεκρόω	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ojrevgomai	ὀρέγομαι	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
parakohv	παρακοή	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
plhroforiva	πληροφορία	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
filoxeniva	φιλοξενία	Greek	正文第 1126 段	依旧字体编码推定。
suvvnoyi" scolikhv	σύνοψις σχολική	Greek	正文第 1134 段	书名与对照一致，重复v疑编码残留。
ajpokavluyi" musthrivou	ἀποκάλυψις μυστηρίου	Greek	正文第 1139 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ejn preuvmati	ἐν πνεύματι	Greek	正文第 1162 段	圣灵语境，原串r疑为n之误。
ejn noi>v	ἐν νοΐ	Greek	正文第 1162 段	依编码复原分音符及重音。
pathvsousin	πατήσουσιν	Greek	正文第 1166 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ajriqmo;" ga;r ajnqrwvpou ejstivn	ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν	Greek	正文第 1184 段	依旧字体编码推定。
cx"j	χξϛʹ	Greek	正文第 1184 段	据666推定χ、ξ及数值6的stigma。
eJxakovsioi eJxhvkonta e}x	ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ	Greek	正文第 1184 段	依数词及编码推定气符。
a	א	Hebrew	正文第 1185 段	抄本列表中的a疑为西奈抄本代号。
ejn pa'si toi'" spoudaivoi" kai; ajrcaivoi" ajntigravfoi"	ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις	Greek	正文第 1185 段	依旧字体编码推定。
ci"j	χιϛʹ	Greek	正文第 1185 段	据616推定χ、ι及stigma。
eJxakovsioi devka e}x	ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ	Greek	正文第 1185 段	依数词及编码推定气符。
mevtron ajnqrwvpou	μέτρον ἀνθρώπου	Greek	正文第 1186 段	依旧字体编码推定。
gewmetriva	γεωμετρία	Greek	正文第 1187 段	依原串保留作者的词源拼写。
a’	αʹ	Greek	正文第 1187 段	数值1的alpha加数字标记。
b’	βʹ	Greek	正文第 1187 段	数值2的beta加数字标记。
"’	ϛʹ	Greek	正文第 1187 段	数值6及st说明指向stigma。
F’	ϟʹ	Greek	正文第 1187 段	上下文明说koppa及数值90。
p	π	Greek	正文第 1187 段	koppa前的pi，依字母顺序推定。
r	ρ	Greek	正文第 1187 段	koppa后的rho，依字母顺序推定。
,a,	͵α	Greek	正文第 1187 段	千数标记加alpha，数值1000。
,b,	͵β	Greek	正文第 1187 段	千数标记加beta，数值2000。
,i,	͵ι	Greek	正文第 1187 段	千数标记加iota，数值10000。
Latei'no"	Λατεῖνος	Greek	正文第 1198 段	依编码保留ει拼法。
lati'no"	λατῖνος	Greek	正文第 1198 段	依编码保留ι拼法及小写。
l	λ	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值30对应lambda。
a	α	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值1对应alpha。
t	τ	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值300对应tau。
e	ε	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值5对应epsilon。
i	ι	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值10对应iota。
n	ν	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值50对应nu。
o	ο	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值70对应omicron。
s	σ	Greek	正文第 1198 段	数值200对应sigma。
Latei'no"	Λατεῖνος	Greek	正文第 1198 段	同段重复，保留ει拼法。
ei	ει	Greek	正文第 1198 段	所论为字母组合，不增气符重音。
jAntonei'no", Paulei'no", Papei'ro" Sabei'no", Faustei'o"	Ἀντονεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Παπεῖρος Σαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖος	Greek	正文第 1198 段	按原串复原，保留异拼及原有分隔。
hJ Latinh; basileiva	ἡ Λατινὴ βασιλεία	Greek	正文第 1198 段	依旧字体编码推定。
Eujanqa"	Εὐανθας	Greek	正文第 1199 段	依编码保留无重音的人名形式。
Lateino"	Λατεινος	Greek	正文第 1199 段	依原串保留无重音形式。
rs'qi @woonoe	נֵרוֹן קִסַר	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	据Neron Kaesar及666逐字数值推定；元音点较不确定。
n	נ	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	数值50及词首n指向nun。
r	ר	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	数值200指向resh。
/	וֹ	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	数值6及o读音指向带holam的waw。
@	ן	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	Neron末尾数值50的终形nun。
q	ק	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	数值100指向qoph。
s	ס	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	数值60指向samekh。
r	ר	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	数值200指向resh。
Nerwn Kai'sar	Νερων Καῖσαρ	Greek	正文第 1205 段	依原串复原，保留Νερων未标重音形式。
rsyq	קיסר	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	讨论省略yodh，原串为反向旧字体排列。
Kai'sar	Καῖσαρ	Greek	正文第 1205 段	依旧字体编码推定。
iy	יִ	Hebrew	正文第 1205 段	上下文指数值10的yodh，i疑为附属元音点。
basilei'"	βασιλεῖς	Greek	正文第 1212 段	君王的复数，依编码复原。
. m/r rsyq	קיסר רוֹם	Hebrew	正文第 1218 段	据Caesar Romae及616推定；原排列和元音点较不确定。
Gavio" Kai'sar	Γάιος Καῖσαρ	Greek	正文第 1220 段	依旧字体编码推定。
Tei'tan	Τεῖταν	Greek	正文第 1222 段	依原串保留曲音及ει拼法。
n	ν	Greek	正文第 1222 段	词尾nu，数值50。
Teitavn	Τειτάν	Greek	正文第 1224 段	依原串保留末音节重音，不同于前项。
qeomavcoi	θεομάχοι	Greek	正文第 1224 段	依旧字体编码推定。
"	ς	Greek	正文第 1230 段	与中性词尾ν对比，指末尾sigma。
qhrivon	θηρίον	Greek	正文第 1230 段	依旧字体编码推定。
Kaivsar Sebastov"	Καίσαρ Σεβαστός	Greek	正文第 1230 段	依原串保留Καίσαρ的尖音。
n	ν	Greek	正文第 1231 段	上下文明确讨论词尾nu。
"	ς	Greek	正文第 1231 段	与词尾nu对比，指末尾sigma。
qyrs	קיסר	Hebrew	正文第 1231 段	据省略yodh及前文同词推定，原字序疑乱。
jAntemo"	Ἀντεμος	Greek	正文第 1241 段	依原串保留特殊名字，不按释义改写。
ajrnoume	ἀρνουμε	Greek	正文第 1241 段	保留作者所引特殊拼法，不改成标准动词。
ajrnevomai	ἀρνέομαι	Greek	正文第 1241 段	依旧字体编码推定。
cx"’	χξϛʹ	Greek	正文第 1245 段	据666及三字母说明推定。
x	χ	Greek	正文第 1245 段	数值600明确指chi，而非xi。
"	ϛ	Greek	正文第 1245 段	数值6指stigma，旧字形近词尾ς。
x	ξ	Greek	正文第 1245 段	中间字母数值60指xi。
eujaggevlion	εὐαγγέλιον	Greek	脚注 6	依旧字体编码推定。
eujaggevlion	εὐαγγέλιον	Greek	脚注 6	同注重复词，依编码复原。
tetravmorfon to; eujaggevlion, eJni pneuvmati sunecovmenon	τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἑνὶ πνεύματι συνεχόμενον	Greek	脚注 7	依编码及爱任纽引文推定，补ἑνὶ重音。
jApomnhmoneuvmata	Ἀπομνημονεύματα	Greek	脚注 9	依旧字体编码推定。
tau'ta de; gevgraptai i{na pisteuvhte o]ti jIhsou'" ejsti;n Cristov" , oJ uiJo;" tou' qeou', kai; i{na pisteuvonte" zeh;n e[chte ejn tw/' ojnovmati auvtou'.	ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.	Greek	脚注 10	依约20:31语境复原；zeh疑为zwh之误，不补原文所无冠词。
Matqei'o" me;n e[grayen JEbraivoi" qauvmata Cristou',	Ματθεῖος μὲν ἔγραψεν Ἑβραίοις θαύματα Χριστοῦ,	Greek	脚注 11	保留诗句中Ματθεῖος异拼。
Mavrko" dj jItalivh/, Louka's jAcaiivdi	Μάρκος δ’ Ἰταλίῃ, Λουκᾶς Ἀχαιίδι	Greek	脚注 11	依编码复原诗句及省音符。
Pa'si d j jIwavnnh" khvrux mevga" , oujranofoivth".	Πᾶσι δ’ Ἰωάννης κήρυξ μέγας, οὐρανοφοίτης.	Greek	脚注 11	依编码复原诗句及省音符。
suvn	σύν	Greek	脚注 13	依旧字体编码推定。
o[yi"	ὄψις	Greek	脚注 13	依旧字体编码推定。
ajfevwntai	ἀφέωνται	Greek	脚注 14	保留作者讨论的不规则异读。
ajpekatestavqjh	ἀπεκατεστάθη	Greek	脚注 14	双重增音语境，θ后的j疑为误入气符。
ajfiventai	ἀφίενται	Greek	脚注 14	保留与前项对照的异读。
ajpokaqivsthmi	ἀποκαθίστημι	Greek	脚注 14	依旧字体编码推定。
ajpekatevsth	ἀπεκατέστη	Greek	脚注 14	依编码保留双重增音形式。
ajpekatevsthse	ἀπεκατέστησε	Greek	脚注 14	依编码保留所引动词词形。
suvntaxi" tw'n logivwn	σύνταξις τῶν λογίων	Greek	脚注 28	依旧字体编码推定。
kaqw;" parevdosan	καθὼς παρέδοσαν	Greek	脚注 29	依旧字体编码推定。
hJmi'n oiJ ajp j ajrch'"	ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς	Greek	脚注 29	依编码复原省音符。
aujtovptai kai; uJphrevtai genovmenoi tou' lovgou	αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου	Greek	脚注 29	依旧字体编码推定。
ajnaginwvskein	ἀναγινώσκειν	Greek	脚注 30	依编码保留不定式。
zw'sa fwnh; kai; mevnousa	ζῶσα φωνὴ καὶ μένουσα	Greek	脚注 32	依旧字体编码推定。
polloi; ejpeceivrhsan	πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν	Greek	脚注 34	依旧字体编码推定。
ajnatavxasqai dihvghsin peri; tw'n peplhroforhmevnwn ejn hJmi'n pragmavtwn	ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων	Greek	脚注 34	依旧字体编码推定。
Maqqai'o"	Μαθθαῖος	Greek	脚注 37	保留作者明确讨论的θθ异拼。
a	א	Hebrew	脚注 37	抄本列表中的西奈抄本代号。
Matqai'o"	Ματθαῖος	Greek	脚注 37	保留与前项θθ对照的τθ拼写。
hY;Tim', hy;nÒT'm' , yaTi:m', yT'm'	מַתִּיָּה, מַתַּנְיָה, מַתָּאי, מַתַּי	Hebrew	脚注 37	按反向旧字体及人名词源推定四形；第三形元音点较不确定。
Leuiv"	Λευίς	Greek	脚注 37	依编码保留ι拼法。
Leueiv"	Λευείς	Greek	脚注 37	依编码保留ει异拼。
wyIlIi	לֵוִי	Hebrew	脚注 37	据Levi及联合释义推定，旧元音点疑损坏。
Maqqai'o" oJ telwvnh"	Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης	Greek	脚注 38	保留原串θθ异拼，复原其余字形。
i{na	ἵνα	Greek	脚注 50	依旧字体编码推定。
o{pw"	ὅπως	Greek	脚注 50	依旧字体编码推定。
plhrwqh'/ to; rjhqevn	πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν	Greek	脚注 50	依编码复原下标ι及词首气符。
tovte ejplhrwvqh to; rjhqevn	τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθέν	Greek	脚注 50	依旧字体编码推定。
kai; ejplhrwvqh hJ grafh k. t. l	καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ κ. τ. λ.	Greek	脚注 50	依编码复原，保留希腊文缩写。
apo; tovte h[rxato oJ jIhsou'" khruvssein, k. t. l.	ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν, κ. τ. λ.	Greek	脚注 52	依太4:17语境推补ἀπὸ气符。
ajpo tovte h[rxato oJ jIh"., k. t. l.	ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰης., κ. τ. λ.	Greek	脚注 52	复原编码并保留Ἰης.缩写。
prosevcwmen, mhvpote, wJ" gevgraptai, polloi; klhtoiv, ojlivgoi de; ejklektoi; euJreqw'men.	προσέχωμεν, μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.	Greek	脚注 55	依原串复原引文，不调整其语序。
gevgraptai	γέγραπται	Greek	脚注 55	依旧字体编码推定。
oujk h\|lqen kalevsai dikaivou" ajllav aJmartwlouv".	οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλά ἁμαρτωλούς.	Greek	脚注 55	依编码复原，保留原串ἀλλά尖音。
jIwavnnou me;n ajkousthv",Polukavrpou de; eJtai'ro" gegonwv"	Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστής, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς	Greek	脚注 56	依旧字体编码推定。
Matqai'o" me;n ou\|n JEbraivdi dialekvtw/ ta; lovgia sunatavxato	Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνατάξατο	Greek	脚注 57	依编码复原，保留原串συνατάξατο异拼。
sunagravyato	συναγράψατο	Greek	脚注 57	保留作者所列异读拼写，不改成συνεγράψατο。
hjrmhvneuse d j aujta; wJ" h{n dunato;" e{kasto"	ἠρμήνευσε δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος	Greek	脚注 57	依引文推定ἦν；保留首词原有平气符。
suvntaxi"	σύνταξις	Greek	脚注 58	依旧字体编码推定。
suggrafhv	συγγραφή	Greek	脚注 58	依旧字体编码推定。
ejxhvghsi"	ἐξήγησις	Greek	脚注 58	依旧字体编码推定。
tw'n logivwn kuriakw'n	τῶν λογίων κυριακῶν	Greek	脚注 58	依旧字体编码推定。
lovgoi kuriakoiv	λόγοι κυριακοί	Greek	脚注 59	依旧字体编码推定。
ta; uJpo; tou' Cristou' h{ lecqevnta h{ pracqevnta.	τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα.	Greek	脚注 59	两处h{据或说或行语境推为ἢ。
oujc w{sper suvntaxin tw'n kuriakw'n poiouvmeno" lovgwn	οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων	Greek	脚注 59	依旧字体编码推定。
logiva	λογία	Greek	脚注 59	依原串保留重音位置。
ta; logiva tou' qeou'	τὰ λογία τοῦ θεοῦ	Greek	脚注 59	依原串保留λογία重音。
ta; stoicei'a th'" ajrch'" tw'n logiwn tou' qeou'	τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ	Greek	脚注 59	去除星号，依词形补λογίων重音。
sfovdra smikro;" to;n nou'n	σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν	Greek	脚注 61	依旧字体编码推定。
ta; tavnta mavlista logiwvtato" kai; th'" grafh'" eijdhvmwn	τὰ πάντα μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων	Greek	脚注 61	原tavnta疑为pavnta之误，据措辞推定πάντα。
oJ men; dh; Matqai'o" ejn toi's jEbraivoi" th' ijdiva/ dialevktw/ aujtw'n kai; grafh;n ejxhvnegken eujaggelivou, tou' Pevtrou kai; Pauvlou ejn JR wvmh eujaggelizomevnwn kai; qemeliouvntwn th;n ejkklhsivan.	ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.	Greek	脚注 62	依编码复原，合并破损Ῥώμῃ并补与格下标。
JEbraivwn gravmmasi	Ἑβραίων γράμμασι	Greek	脚注 63	依旧字体编码推定。
wJ" ejn paradovsei maqwvn	ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθών	Greek	脚注 64	依旧字体编码推定。
Matqai'o" me;n ga;r provteron JEbraivoi" khruvxa", wJ" e[melle kai; ef j eJtevrou" ijevnai, patrivw/ glwvtth/ grafh'/ paradou;" to; kat j aujto;n euvaggevlion, to; lei'pon th'/ aujtou' parousiva/ touvtoi", ajf j w\|n ejstevlleto, dia; th'" : grafh'" ajpeplhvrou.	Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἔμελλε καὶ ἐφ’ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ κατ’ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις, ἀφ’ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου.	Greek	脚注 65	依编码复原，去除τῆς后的游离冒号。
Matq. oJ gravya" to; eujaggevlion JEbraiv�di glwvssh/.	Ματθ. ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἑβραΐδι γλώσσῃ.	Greek	脚注 66	依语境将损坏字符推为分音符ι，保留人名缩写。
hJrmhvneuse	ἡρμήνευσε	Greek	脚注 71	依原串保留粗气符，与正文平气符形式不强求一致。
kakouv" kakw'" ajpolevsei	κακούς κακῶς ἀπολέσει	Greek	脚注 72	依编码复原双关，保留首词尖音。
Pevtro"	Πέτρος	Greek	脚注 72	依旧字体编码推定。
pevtra	πέτρα	Greek	脚注 72	依旧字体编码推定。
battologei'n	βαττολογεῖν	Greek	脚注 72	依旧字体编码推定。
polulogiva	πολυλογία	Greek	脚注 72	依旧字体编码推定。
ajfanivzousin o{pw" fanw'si	ἀφανίζουσιν ὅπως φανῶσι	Greek	脚注 72	依旧字体编码推定。
ajneyiov"	ἀνεψιός	Greek	脚注 80	依旧字体编码推定。
ejmnhmovneuse	ἐμνημόνευσε	Greek	脚注 81	依旧字体编码推定。
e[grayen	ἔγραψεν	Greek	脚注 81	依旧字体编码推定。
ajll j oujc w{sper suvntaxin tw'n kuriakw'n lovgwn	ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λόγων	Greek	脚注 82	依编码复原，保留原文片段。
logivwn	λογίων	Greek	脚注 82	保留与λόγων对照的异读。
ajpomnemoneuvmata	ἀπομνημονεύματα	Greek	脚注 85	回忆录一词，原串e疑为h之误。
meta; th;n touvtwn e[xodon	μετὰ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον	Greek	脚注 90	依旧字体编码推定。
meta; th;n e[kdosin	μετὰ τὴν ἔκδοσιν	Greek	脚注 90	保留作者讨论的猜测异读。
e[xodon	ἔξοδον	Greek	脚注 90	依旧字体编码推定。
uiJou' (tou') qeou'	υἱοῦ (τοῦ) θεοῦ	Greek	脚注 93	依编码复原并保留括号内冠词。
a	א	Hebrew	脚注 93	抄本列表中的西奈抄本代号。
a*	א*	Hebrew	脚注 93	西奈抄本代号，星号表示原手。
kh'nso"	κῆνσος	Greek	脚注 98	依旧字体编码推定。
kenturivwn	κεντυρίων	Greek	脚注 98	依旧字体编码推定。
xevsth"	ξέστης	Greek	脚注 98	依旧字体编码推定。
spekoulavtwp	σπεκουλάτωρ	Greek	脚注 98	据speculator借词推定末字母ρ，原p疑形近误识。
to; iJkanovn poiei''n	τὸ ἱκανόν ποιεῖν	Greek	脚注 98	去除重复曲音编码，保留ἱκανόν尖音。
ejscavtw" e[cei	ἐσχάτως ἔχει	Greek	脚注 98	依旧字体编码推定。
sumbouvlion didovnai	συμβούλιον διδόναι	Greek	脚注 98	依旧字体编码推定。
kodravnth"	κοδράντης	Greek	脚注 98	依旧字体编码推定。
eujqevw"	εὐθέως	Greek	脚注 99	依旧字体编码推定。
eujquv"	εὐθύς	Greek	脚注 99	依旧字体编码推定。
ajnablevyai, ejmblevya", peribleyavmeno" , ajnaphdhvsa", kuvya" , ejmbrimhsavmeno", ejpistrafeiv" ajpostenavxa"	ἀναβλέψαι, ἐμβλέψας, περιβλεψάμενος, ἀναπηδήσας, κύψας, ἐμβριμησάμενος, ἐπιστραφείς ἀποστενάξας	Greek	脚注 103	按原串复原词表，不调整词形。
paidivon, koravsion, kunavrion, qugavtrion, ivcquvdion, wjtavrion	παιδίον, κοράσιον, κυνάριον, θυγάτριον, ἰχθύδιον, ὠτάριον	Greek	脚注 104	依指小词词表推定，补ἰχθύδιον气符。
ajgreuvein, a[lalo", ajlektorofwniva, gnafeuv" , ekqambei'sqai, ejnagkalivzesqai, ejxavpina, ejneilevw, ejxoudenovw, e[nnucon, mogilavlo", prasiai; prasiaiv, prosavbbaton, promerimna'n, prosormivzesqai, sunqlivbein, thlaugw'" , uJpolhvnion	ἀγρεύειν, ἄλαλος, ἀλεκτοροφωνία, γναφεύς, ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι, ἐξάπινα, ἐνειλέω, ἐξουδενόω, ἔννυχον, μογιλάλος, πρασιαὶ πρασιαί, προσάββατον, προμεριμνᾶν, προσορμίζεσθαι, συνθλίβειν, τηλαυγῶς, ὑπολήνιον	Greek	脚注 106	依编码复原词表，补ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι气符。
ejmblevya" aujtw'/ hJgavphsen aujtovn	ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἡγάπησεν αὐτόν	Greek	脚注 112	依旧字体编码推定。
oJ pisteuvsa" kai; baptisqei;" swqhvsetai, oJ de; ajpisthvsa" katakriqhvsetai	ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται	Greek	脚注 120	依旧字体编码推定。
oJ pisteuvsa"	ὁ πιστεύσας	Greek	脚注 120	依旧字体编码推定。
ejx u{dato"	ἐξ ὕδατος	Greek	脚注 120	依旧字体编码推定。
glwvssai"	γλώσσαις	Greek	脚注 121	依旧字体编码推定。
kainai'"	καιναῖς	Greek	脚注 121	依旧字体编码推定。
kainai'"	καιναῖς	Greek	脚注 121	同注重复词，依编码复原。
lalhvsousin	λαλήσουσιν	Greek	脚注 121	依旧字体编码推定。
Louka'"	Λουκᾶς	Greek	脚注 123	依旧字体编码推定。
lukanov"	λυκανός	Greek	脚注 123	依原串保留小写及υ拼法。
Louka'" to; me;n gevno" w{n tw'n ajp J jAntioceiva", th;n ejpisthvmhn de; ijatrov" , k. t. l.	Λουκᾶς τὸ μὲν γένος ὢν τῶν ἀπ’ Ἀντιοχείας, τὴν ἐπιστήμην δὲ ἰατρός, κ. τ. λ.	Greek	脚注 127	依引文语境复原ὢν，保留末尾缩写。
pa'si"—ajkribw'"—kaqexh'"	πᾶσιν—ἀκριβῶς—καθεξῆς	Greek	脚注 132	路1:3所列词为πᾶσιν，原末尾引号疑误识ν。
kravtiste Qeovfile	κράτιστε Θεόφιλε	Greek	脚注 133	依旧字体编码推定。
i{na ejpignw'/" peri; w\n kathchvqh" th;n ajsfavleian	ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης τὴν ἀσφάλειαν	Greek	脚注 135	依路1:4语境推定ὧν气符。
swthvr	σωτήρ	Greek	脚注 139	依旧字体编码推定。
swthriva	σωτηρία	Greek	脚注 139	依旧字体编码推定。
swthvrio"	σωτήριος	Greek	脚注 139	依原串保留词典形式，不改为中性。
h\|n sunecomevnh puretw/' megavlw/	ἦν συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ	Greek	脚注 147	依路4:38语境复原ἦν。
sunecomevnh	συνεχομένη	Greek	脚注 147	依旧字体编码推定。
puretoi'" kai; dusenterivw/ sunecovmenon	πυρετοῖς καὶ δυσεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον	Greek	脚注 148	依编码保留所引词形。
plevw	πλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
plevw	πλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
ajpoplevw	ἀποπλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
braduploevw	βραδυπλοέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
braduv"	βραδύς	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
diaplevw	διαπλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
ekplevw	ἐκπλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依词形推补首字母气符。
kataplevw	καταπλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
uJpoplevw	ὑποπλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
paraplevw	παραπλέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
aJnavgomai	ἀνάγομαι	Greek	脚注 149	启航一词，原粗气符疑误。
diaperavw	διαπεράω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
diafevromai	διαφέρομαι	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
ejpikevllw	ἐπικέλλω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
eujqudromevw	εὐθυδρομέω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
paralevgomai	παραλέγομαι	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
uJpotrevcw	ὑποτρέχω	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
uJpevdramon	ὑπέδραμον	Greek	脚注 149	依编码保留不定过去时。
fevromai	φέρομαι	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
ejkbolh;n ejpoiou'nto	ἐκβολὴν ἐποιοῦντο	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
ejkouvfizon to; ploi'on	ἐκούφιζον τὸ πλοῖον	Greek	脚注 149	依旧字体编码推定。
carav	χαρά	Greek	脚注 151	依旧字体编码推定。
pneu'ma	πνεῦμα	Greek	脚注 152	依旧字体编码推定。
pneu'ma	πνεῦμα	Greek	脚注 152	依旧字体编码推定。
a{gion	ἅγιον	Greek	脚注 152	依旧字体编码推定。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	脚注 154	依旧字体编码推定。
cavri", e[leo" , pivsti", dikaiosuvnh, divkaio" , a[gion	χάρις, ἔλεος, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, δίκαιος, ἅγιον	Greek	脚注 154	依词表复原，末词据圣洁语境推粗气符。
duvnami" kurivou	δύναμις κυρίου	Greek	脚注 154	依旧字体编码推定。
ajgnoei'n, ajdikiva, ajqetei'n, aijcmalwtivzein, ajnapevmpein, ajntapokrivnesqai, ajntikeivmeno", ajntilambavnesqai, ajpelpivzein, ajpologei'sqai, ajtenivzein, ejkdiwvkein, ejpifaivnein, eujgenhv" , hjcei'n, katargei'n, kinduneuvein, kurieuvein, panopliva,paravdeiso", sugcaivrein, suneudokei'n, uJstevrhma, carivzesqai, yalmov"	ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδικία, ἀθετεῖν, αἰχμαλωτίζειν, ἀναπέμπειν, ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι, ἀντικείμενος, ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, ἀπελπίζειν, ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ἀτενίζειν, ἐκδιώκειν, ἐπιφαίνειν, εὐγενής, ἠχεῖν, καταργεῖν, κινδυνεύειν, κυριεύειν, πανοπλία, παράδεισος, συγχαίρειν, συνευδοκεῖν, ὑστέρημα, χαρίζεσθαι, ψαλμός	Greek	脚注 155	按旧字体编码逐词复原词表。
ajll J oujdev, eij kaiv, eij mhvti, tiv" ou\n	ἀλλ’ οὐδέ, εἰ καί, εἰ μήτι, τίς οὖν	Greek	脚注 155	依编码复原虚词及省音符。
kuvrio"	κύριος	Greek	脚注 155	依旧字体编码推定。
o{	ὅ	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原关系代词。
e[qhken qemevlion ejpi; th;n pevtran	ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
wj" sofo;" ajpcitevktwn qemevlion e[qhka	ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον ἔθηκα	Greek	脚注 156	依林前3:10推定气符及形近误识ρ。
karpoforou'sin uJpomonh'/	καρποφοροῦσιν ὑπομονῇ	Greek	脚注 156	依原串复原，不补其省略的介词。
karpoforou'nte" kai; aujxanovmenoi eij" pa'san uJpomonhvn	καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονήν	Greek	脚注 156	依原串复原，保留节选拼接。
oujk h\lqe yuca;" ajnqrwvpwn ajpolevsai, ajlla; sw'sai	οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原，保留作者所引异读。
; [Edwken eij" oijkodomh;n kai; oujk eij" kaqaivresin	Ἔδωκεν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσιν	Greek	脚注 156	去除游离分号，复原大写字母气符。
ejsqivete ta; paratiqevmena uJmi'n	ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
pa'n to; paratiqevmenon uJmi'n ejsqivete	πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
ta; ojnovmata uJmw'n ejgravfh ejn toi'" oujranoi'"	τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγράφη ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
w\|n ta; ojnovmata ejn Bivblw/ zwh'"	ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν Βίβλῳ ζωῆς	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原，保留Βίβλῳ大写。
ajpevkruya" tau'ta ajpo; sofw'n kai; sunetw'n kai; ajpekavluya" aujta nhpivoi"	ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原并补αὐτὰ缺失重音。
ajpolw' th;n sofivan tw'nsofw'n kai; th;n suvnesin tw'n sunetw'n ajqethvsw	ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原并拆开粘连词。
ta; mwra; tou' kovsmou ejxelevxato oJ qeo;" i{na kataiscuvnh/ tou;" sofouv"	τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
pavnta kaqara; uJmi'n ejstin	πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
pavnta me;n kaqara; toi'" kaqaroi'"	πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς	Greek	脚注 156	依编码保留作者所引μὲν。
ajpostelw' eij" aujtou;" profhvta" kai; ajpostovlou" kai; ejx aujtw'n ajpoktenou'si kai; ekdiwvxousin	ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσι καὶ ἐκδιώξουσιν	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原，补ἐκδιώξουσιν气符。
tw'n kai; to;n kuvrion ajpokteinavntwn jIhsou'n kai; tou;" profhvta" kai; hJma'" ejkdiwxavntwn	τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
e[stwsan uJmw'n aij ojsfuve" periezwsmevnai	ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
sth'te ou\n perizwsavmenoi tw'n ojsfu'n uJmw'n ejn ajlhqeiva/	στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τῶν ὀσφῦν ὑμῶν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ	Greek	脚注 156	依原串保留τῶν，不擅改其语法为τὴν。
dei'n pavntote proseuvcesqai kai; mh; ejkkakei'n	δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐκκακεῖν	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
eij"	εἰς	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
kai proseuxovmeqa pavntote	καὶ προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε	Greek	脚注 156	据帖后1:11及祷告语境推χ，原x疑误。
pavntote aJgwvnizovmeno" uJpe;r uJmw'n ejn tai'" proseuxai'"	πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς	Greek	脚注 156	依西4:12词形修复气符、重音及χ误识。
mh; gevnoito	μὴ γένοιτο	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
pavnte" ga;r aujtw'/ zw'sin	πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν	Greek	脚注 156	依旧字体编码推定。
ejavn te ga;r zw'men, tw/ kupivw/ zw'men	ἐάν τε γὰρ ζῶμεν, τῷ κυρίῳ ζῶμεν	Greek	脚注 156	依罗14:8语境推κυρίῳ，原p疑误识ρ。
kai ; JIerousalh;m e[stai patoumevnh uJpo; ejqnw'n a[cri plhrwqw'si kairoi; ejqnw'n	καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν ἄχρι πληρωθῶσι καιροὶ ἐθνῶν	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原并合并καὶ分离重音。
o{ti pwvrwsi" tw'/ jIsrah;l gevgonen a[cri" ou\| to; plhvrwma tw'n ejqnw	ὅτι πώρωσις τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρις οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν	Greek	脚注 156	依编码复原，末词据属格及罗11:25补全。
parejdosan	παρέδοσαν	Greek	脚注 162	路1:2用词，原气符位置疑为重音损坏。
oJ kuvrio"	ὁ κύριος	Greek	脚注 162	依旧字体编码推定。
hJmi'n	ἡμῖν	Greek	脚注 162	依旧字体编码推定。
dung	dung	Unknown	脚注 163	德文词首残缺，可能候选不唯一，无法提出更可靠字形，保留原串。
to;n jIwavnnhn e[scaton sunidovnta o{ti ta; swmatika; ejn toi'" eujaggelivoi" dedhvlwtai protrapevnta uJpo; tw'n gnwrivmwn	τὸν Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων	Greek	脚注 181	依旧字体编码推定。
pneuvmati qeoforhqevnta, pneumatiko;n poih'sai eujaggevlion	πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον	Greek	脚注 181	依旧字体编码推定。
tolmhtevon toivnun eijpei'n ajparch;n me;n pasw'n grafw'n ei\|nai ta; eujaggevlia, tw'n de eujaggelivwn ajparch;n to; kata; jIwavnnhn	τολμητέον τοίνυν εἰπεῖν ἀπαρχὴν μὲν πασῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὰ εὐαγγέλια, τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων ἀπαρχὴν τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην	Greek	脚注 184	依编码复原，推定εἶναι气符并补δὲ重音。
ajnagennhqh'te	ἀναγεννηθῆτε	Greek	脚注 199	依编码保留游斯丁引文词形。
eijsevlqh'te	εἰσέλθητε	Greek	脚注 199	原串曲音位置不合词形，依动词推尖音。
gennhqh'/ a[nwqen	γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν	Greek	脚注 199	依旧字体编码推定。
ijdei'n	ἰδεῖν	Greek	脚注 199	依旧字体编码推定。
ajnagennhqh'te	ἀναγεννηθῆτε	Greek	脚注 199	同注重复引文词形。
gennhqh'/ a[nwqen	γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν	Greek	脚注 199	同注重复词组。
eijselqei'n	εἰσελθεῖν	Greek	脚注 199	依编码保留不定式。
ijdei'n	ἰδεῖν	Greek	脚注 199	依编码保留不定式。
basileiva tw'n oujranw'n	βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν	Greek	脚注 199	依旧字体编码推定。
ba". tou' qeou'	βας. τοῦ θεοῦ	Greek	脚注 199	按原串保留缩写，不擅自展开。
Logivwn Kuriakw'n ejxhghvsei"	Λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις	Greek	脚注 204	依原串保留复数书名及大写。
ejqeasavmeqa th;n dovxan	ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν	Greek	脚注 218	依旧字体编码推定。
qeavomai	θεάομαι	Greek	脚注 218	依旧字体编码推定。
oJravw	ὁράω	Greek	脚注 218	依旧字体编码推定。
TWN EPI - PAULOU - [ANQ]UPATOU	ΤΩΝ ΕΠΙ - ΠΑΥΛΟΥ - [ΑΝΘ]ΥΠΑΤΟΥ	Greek	脚注 245	依编码复原铭文，保留补字括号及分隔。
tou;" politavrca"	τοὺς πολιτάρχας	Greek	脚注 250	依旧字体编码推定。
touv" a[rconta" tw'n politw'n	τούς ἄρχοντας τῶν πολιτῶν	Greek	脚注 250	依编码复原，保留首词尖音。
polivarco"	πολίαρχος	Greek	脚注 250	保留与πολιτάρχης对照的词形。
POLEITARCOUNTWN SWSIPATROU TOU KLEO	ΠΟΛΕΙΤΑΡΧΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΩΣΙΠΑΤΡΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΟ	Greek	脚注 251	复原大写铭文，保留ΠΟΛΕΙ拼法及末尾截断。
qew'/	θεῷ	Greek	脚注 252	依编码复原与格及下标ι。
suvmfutoi	σύμφυτοι	Greek	脚注 256	依旧字体编码推定。
fuvw	φύω	Greek	脚注 256	依旧字体编码推定。
futeuw	φυτεύω	Greek	脚注 256	依词形推补缺失重音。
ejpistolh; kaqolikhv	ἐπιστολὴ καθολική	Greek	脚注 258	依旧字体编码推定。
sunagwgh;	συναγωγὴ	Greek	脚注 259	依原串保留重音形式。
Qessalonivkaia	Θεσσαλονίκαια	Greek	脚注 269	保留作者引述的地名异形。
to; katevcon	τὸ κατέχον	Greek	脚注 270	依旧字体编码推定。
oJ katevcwn	ὁ κατέχων	Greek	脚注 270	依编码保留与中性形式的区别。
iJerovdouloi	ἱερόδουλοι	Greek	脚注 272	依旧字体编码推定。
Korinqiva kovrh	Κορινθία κόρη	Greek	脚注 272	依旧字体编码推定。
jEpivkthto"	Ἐπίκτητος	Greek	脚注 283	依旧字体编码推定。
Kolossaiv	Κολοσσαί	Greek	脚注 284	保留作者讨论的ο拼法。
Kolassaiv	Κολασσαί	Greek	脚注 284	保留作者讨论的α异拼。
povli" megavlh	πόλις μεγάλη	Greek	脚注 284	依旧字体编码推定。
eujdaivmwn kai; megavlh	εὐδαίμων καὶ μεγάλη	Greek	脚注 284	依旧字体编码推定。
Cw'nai	Χῶναι	Greek	脚注 284	依旧字体编码推定。
th;n Frugivan kai; Galatikh;n cwvran	τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν	Greek	脚注 285	依旧字体编码推定。
th;n ejk Laodikaiva" i{na kai; uJmei'" a jnagnw'te	τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικαίας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε	Greek	脚注 288	依编码复原并合并破损ἀναγνῶτε。
ta; stoicei'a tou' kovsmou	τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου	Greek	脚注 289	依旧字体编码推定。
plhvrwma	πλήρωμα	Greek	脚注 290	依旧字体编码推定。
plhrou'n	πληροῦν	Greek	脚注 290	依编码保留不定式。
ma	μα	Greek	脚注 290	所论为希腊名词词尾。
plhvrwma povlew"	πλήρωμα πόλεως	Greek	脚注 290	依旧字体编码推定。
alm]	מְלֹא	Hebrew	脚注 290	据丰盛释义及反向旧字体推定；原元音点不全。
to; plhvrwma th'" gh'"	τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς γῆς	Greek	脚注 290	依旧字体编码推定。
to; plhvrwma th'" qalavssh"	τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θαλάσσης	Greek	脚注 290	依旧字体编码推定。
kofivnwn plhrwvmata	κοφίνων πληρώματα	Greek	脚注 290	依旧字体编码推定。
spurivdwn pl.	σπυρίδων πλ.	Greek	脚注 290	依编码复原并保留πλ.缩写。
plhvrwsi"	πλήρωσις	Greek	脚注 291	依旧字体编码推定。
to; plhvrwma th'" qeovthto"	τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος	Greek	脚注 292	依编码保留θεότης与θειότης的区别。
qeiovthto"	θειότητος	Greek	脚注 292	依编码保留与前项对照的ει。
monogenh;" qeov"	μονογενὴς θεός	Greek	脚注 293	保留作者讨论的异读，不改成υἱός。
tou' kurivou	τοῦ κυρίου	Greek	脚注 294	保留作者讨论的异读。
tou' ijdivou	τοῦ ἰδίου	Greek	脚注 294	依旧字体编码推定。
uiJou'	υἱοῦ	Greek	脚注 294	依旧字体编码推定。
kurivou	κυρίου	Greek	脚注 294	依旧字体编码推定。
qeou'	θεοῦ	Greek	脚注 294	依旧字体编码推定。
ejn jEfevsw'	ἐν Ἐφέσῳ	Greek	脚注 296	地名与格，原曲音疑误，推定尖音及下标ι。
ejn jEfevsw'	ἐν Ἐφέσῳ	Greek	脚注 296	同注重复地名与格。
kai; uJmei'"	καὶ ὑμεῖς	Greek	脚注 301	依旧字体编码推定。
sofiva	σοφία	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
aivscrologiva	αἰσχρολογία	Greek	脚注 307	依西3:8词形补首字母气符。
ajntanaplhrovw	ἀνταναπληρόω	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
eijphvopoievw	εἰρηνοποιέω	Greek	脚注 307	西1:20用词，原串ρ、ν疑形近误识。
ejqeloqrhskeiva	ἐθελοθρησκεία	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
piqanologiva	πιθανολογία	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
ta; ejpouravnia	τὰ ἐπουράνια	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
ta; pveumatikav	τὰ πνευματικά	Greek	脚注 307	弗6:12用词，原v疑误识ν。
kosmokravtore"	κοσμοκράτορες	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
polupoivkilo"	πολυποίκιλος	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
a[fesi"	ἄφεσις	Greek	脚注 307	依旧字体编码推定。
pavresi"	πάρεσις	Greek	脚注 307	依编码保留与ἄφεσις的区别。
parqevno"	παρθένος	Greek	脚注 309	依旧字体编码推定。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησία	Greek	脚注 309	依旧字体编码推定。
kaqara; kai; ajdiavfqoro" e[menen hJ	καθαρὰ καὶ ἀδιάφθορος ἔμενεν ἡ	Greek	脚注 309	依编码复原，保留片段末尾冠词。
ejn ajdhvlw/ pou skovtei	ἐν ἀδήλῳ που σκότει	Greek	脚注 309	依旧字体编码推定。
gumnh'/ loipo;n h[dh th'/ kefalh'/	γυμνῇ λοιπὸν ἤδη τῇ κεφαλῇ	Greek	脚注 309	依旧字体编码推定。
gnw'si"	γνῶσις	Greek	脚注 310	依旧字体编码推定。
yeudwvnumo"	ψευδώνυμος	Greek	脚注 310	依旧字体编码推定。
eJterodidavskaloi.	ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι	Greek	脚注 310	依编码复原，去除列举词后的异常句点。
uJgih;" kanwvn	ὑγιὴς κανών	Greek	脚注 310	依旧字体编码推定。
caivrete	χαίρετε	Greek	脚注 314	依旧字体编码推定。
a[crhsto"	ἄχρηστος	Greek	脚注 322	依旧字体编码推定。
eu[crhsto"	εὔχρηστος	Greek	脚注 322	依编码保留与前项对照的词形。
ojnaivmhn	ὀναίμην	Greek	脚注 322	依旧字体编码推定。
eij dev ti ... ojfeivlei	εἰ δέ τι ... ὀφείλει	Greek	脚注 323	依编码复原，保留省略号。
e[kleyen	ἔκλεψεν	Greek	脚注 323	依旧字体编码推定。
ajnavlusi"	ἀνάλυσις	Greek	脚注 330	依旧字体编码推定。
ajntiqevsei" th'" yeudwnuvmou gnwvsew"	ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως	Greek	脚注 335	依旧字体编码推定。
kenofwnivai	κενοφωνίαι	Greek	脚注 335	依旧字体编码推定。
logomacivai	λογομαχίαι	Greek	脚注 335	依旧字体编码推定。
ajgaqoergei'n. aJgneiva, ajdhlovth", ajndrapodisthv" , a[drofovno", ejterodidaskalei'n, qeosevbeia, katastolhv, plevgma, orismov" , filarguriva, yeudolovgo", yeudwvnumo"	ἀγαθοεργεῖν, ἁγνεία, ἀδηλότης, ἀνδραποδιστής, ἀνδροφόνος, ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, θεοσέβεια, καταστολή, πλέγμα, πορισμός, φιλαργυρία, ψευδολόγος, ψευδώνυμος	Greek	脚注 340	按词表推定ἀνδροφόνος及πορισμός缺字，修复ἑτερο首气符。
ajgwghv, ajqlei'n, bevltion, membravna, ojrqotomei'n, pragmateiva, filovqeo"	ἀγωγή, ἀθλεῖν, βέλτιον, μεμβράνα, ὀρθοτομεῖν, πραγματεία, φιλόθεος	Greek	脚注 340	依旧字体编码逐词复原。
aiJretikov" , ajkatavgnwsto", ajfqoriva, ajyeudhv" , kalodidavskalo", mataiolovgo" , presbuvti", swthvrio" , filavgaqo", fivlandro"	αἱρετικός, ἀκατάγνωστος, ἀφθορία, ἀψευδής, καλοδιδάσκαλος, ματαιολόγος, πρεσβύτις, σωτήριος, φιλάγαθος, φίλανδρος	Greek	脚注 340	依旧字体编码逐词复原。
palingenesiva	παλιγγενεσία	Greek	脚注 340	依旧字体编码推定。
diavbolo"	διάβολος	Greek	脚注 340	依旧字体编码推定。
ajnovsio" , didaktikov", kenofwniva, nomivmw" , paraqhvkh, genealogiva, eujsebw'"	ἀνόσιος, διδακτικός, κενοφωνία, νομίμως, παραθήκη, γενεαλογία, εὐσεβῶς	Greek	脚注 340	依旧字体编码逐词复原。
th'" prwvth" skhnh'" ejcouvsh" stavsin	τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν	Greek	脚注 346	依旧字体编码推定。
eijsivasin	εἰσίασιν	Greek	脚注 346	依编码保留现在时词形。
iJereuv"	ἱερεύς	Greek	脚注 347	依旧字体编码推定。
lovgo" paraklhvsew"	λόγος παρακλήσεως	Greek	脚注 349	依旧字体编码推定。
mevcri ai}mato"	μέχρι αἵματος	Greek	脚注 358	依来12:4词形推定气符及尖音。
oiJ ajpo; th's jItaliva"	οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας	Greek	脚注 360	依旧字体编码推定。
ejn jItaliva/	ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ	Greek	脚注 360	依旧字体编码推定。
oiJ ejx	οἱ ἐξ	Greek	脚注 360	依编码保留原文片段。
oiJ ajpo; gh'"	οἱ ἀπὸ γῆς	Greek	脚注 360	依旧字体编码推定。
oiJ ajpo; qalavssh"	οἱ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης	Greek	脚注 360	依旧字体编码推定。
oiJ ajpo; th's jAlexandreiva" basilei'"	οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας βασιλεῖς	Greek	脚注 360	依旧字体编码推定。
ajspavzontaiv se ... pavnte" oiJ ajpo; Filivppwn ejn cristw'/, o]ten kai; ejpevsteilav soi	ἀσπάζονταί σε ... πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ Φιλίππων ἐν χριστῷ, ὅθεν καὶ ἐπέστειλά σοι	Greek	脚注 360	依从那里释义推ὅθεν，原t疑误；保留χριστῷ小写。
polumerw'" kai; polutrovpw"	πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως	Greek	脚注 364	依旧字体编码推定。
e[maqen ejfj w\|n e[paqen th;n uJpakohvn	ἔμαθεν ἐφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν	Greek	脚注 364	依编码复原省音及气符。
sunqevsei th'" levxew" ejllhnikwtevra	συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἑλληνικωτέρα	Greek	脚注 365	去除强调标记，依引文推定ἑλληνικωτέρα气符。
tiv" de; oJ gravya" th;n ejpistolh;n, to; me;n ajlhqe;" qeo;" oi\|den	τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν	Greek	脚注 366	依编码及οἶδεν词形复原。
Klhvmh" oJ genovmeno" ejpivskopos JRwmaivwn e[graye th;n ejpistolhvn	Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν	Greek	脚注 375	依旧字体编码推定。
jApokavluyis jIhsou' Cristou'	Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ	Greek	脚注 378	依旧字体编码推定。
a	א	Hebrew	脚注 378	西奈抄本代号aleph。
apokaluyi" iwanou	αποκαλυψις ιωανου	Greek	脚注 378	保留抄本题名无重音及单ν异拼。
tou' aJgivou	τοῦ ἁγίου	Greek	脚注 378	依旧字体编码推定。
tou' qeolovgou	τοῦ θεολόγου	Greek	脚注 378	依旧字体编码推定。
MARAN AQA	ΜΑΡΑΝ ΑΘΑ	Greek	脚注 398	依编码复原大写希腊字母，保留分词。
a	α	Greek	脚注 399	数值1对应alpha。
b	β	Greek	脚注 399	数值2对应beta。
r	ρ	Greek	脚注 399	数值100对应rho。
a	α	Greek	脚注 399	数值1对应alpha。
x	ξ	Greek	脚注 399	数值60对应xi。
a	α	Greek	脚注 399	数值1对应alpha。
"	ς	Greek	脚注 399	Abraxas词尾sigma，数值200。
I	Ι	Greek	脚注 400	数值10对应iota，保留原串大写。
h	η	Greek	脚注 400	数值8对应eta。
s	σ	Greek	脚注 400	数值200对应sigma。
o	ο	Greek	脚注 400	数值70对应omicron。
u	υ	Greek	脚注 400	数值400对应upsilon。
s	ς	Greek	脚注 400	耶稣名字词尾sigma，数值200。
ijhsous	ἰησους	Greek	脚注 400	依原串保留小写及未标重音形式，复原气符和末尾ς。

《提摩太后书》3:16。这句话适用于“凡上帝所默示的圣经”，直接所指是《旧约》，但按举轻明重之理 (a fortiori)，就更适用于《新约》。↩︎
参《彼得后书》3:16，该处暗示已有一部保罗书信集。↩︎
拉赫曼 (Lachmann)、蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)、特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)、韦斯科特 (Westcott) 和霍特 (Hort) 的校勘版恢复了这一顺序。↩︎
《西奈抄本》(Codex Sinaiticus) 将保罗书信置于《使徒行传》之前，又将《希伯来书》置于《帖撒罗尼迦后书》与《提摩太前书》之间。↩︎
这一顺序与《穆拉多利残篇》(Muratorian Fragment)、优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的目录（《教会史》〔H. E.〕III. 25）、迦太基会议 (Synod of Carthage，公元897年) 的目录，以及《巴塞尔抄本》(Codex Basiliensis) 一致。路德 (Luther) 自行把《希伯来书》（他认为出于亚波罗）从保罗书信中分离出来，将它与《雅各书》（他不喜欢这封书信）一同置于大公书信的末尾（《犹大书》除外）。↩︎
希腊词 εὐαγγέλιον^* 传入拉丁语，成为 evangelium，又经拉丁语进入现代语言（法语、德语、意大利语等），其含义为：第1，给报好消息者的酬报（见荷马）；第2，好消息、佳音；第3，关于基督及其救恩的佳音（《新约》中的用法）；第4，这些佳音的记载（福音书标题及教会中的用法）。撒克逊语的“gospel”，即上帝的话或好消息（God’s spell 或 good spell，源自 spellian，意为述说），是最贴近 εὐαγγέλιον^* 原意的惯用对应词。↩︎
爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 极为恰当地称它们为 τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἑνὶ πνεύματι συνεχόμενον^*，quadriforme evangelium quod uno spiritu continetur，即“由同一圣灵贯通的四重形式的福音”。《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) III. 11，§ 8。↩︎
《约翰福音》20:30明确否认有此意图；参21:25。↩︎
因此，殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 在他的两篇《护教辞》（约写于146年）中，将福音书称为基督或使徒的“回忆录”或“言行录”（Ἀπομνημονεύματα^*），无疑是仿照色诺芬 (Xenophon) 的《苏格拉底言行录》(Memorabilia of Socrates)。游斯丁说，这些“回忆录”在星期日的公共礼拜中宣读；他所指的正是我们的正典福音书，而不是其他书籍，这一点没有任何合理的怀疑余地。尤参阿博特 (Abbot) 博士的《第四福音书的作者》(Authorship of the Fourth Gospel)，1880年。↩︎
《约翰福音》20:30、31：ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.^*。↩︎
这种概括由来已久，可以追溯到拿先斯的贵格利 (Gregory Nazianzen) 的《诗歌》(Carmen) 第33首；他在其中列举《新约》各卷，并说：

Ματθεῖος μὲν ἔγραψεν Ἑβραίοις θαύματα Χριστοῦ,^*

Μάρκος δ’ Ἰταλίῃ, Λουκᾶς Ἀχαιίδι^*

Πᾶσι δ’ Ἰωάννης κήρυξ μέγας, οὐρανοφοίτης.^*。↩︎
关于此题，见费舍尔 (Fisher)《基督教的起源》(Beginnings of Christianity) 第XI章：“新约历史书中的年代水印”，第363页及后，尤见第371页。↩︎
Synopsis（conspectus，综览）源自 σύν^*，意为“一同”，以及 ὄψις^*，意为“观看”；自格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach) 以来（虽然在他以前已有使用），此词用于指福音书的平行编排，借此展示整体概貌，并便于比较。在某些部分，第四福音书也提供平行记载，尤其在受难与复活的历史中。前三位福音书作者不应称为 Synoptics（《超自然宗教》〔Supernatural Religion〕的作者，第I卷，第213页，以及戴维森〔Davidson〕博士如此称呼），而应称为 Synoptists。前者是德语式用法（Synoptiker）。↩︎
霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann，第12页) 等人还将不规则形式 ἀφέωνται^*（多利亚方言的被动完成时第三人称复数形式），《马太福音》9:2、5；《马可福音》2:5、9；《路加福音》5:20、23，以及 ἀπεκατεστάθη^* 中的双重增音，《马太福音》12:13；《马可福音》3:5；《路加福音》6:10，列入措辞相同的例证。但前者应予排除，因为有更佳异读 ἀφίενται^*；拉赫曼、蒂申多夫、特雷格尔斯、韦斯科特和霍特在《马太福音》9:2、5及《马可福音》2:5中均采用此读法。此外，这种多利亚形式并非《新约》所独有，而是流传颇广；见莫尔顿 (Moulton) 所编维纳 (Winer) 的著作，第97页注。至于双重增音，《七十士译本》中也有出现（见特罗米乌斯〔Trommius〕《经文汇编》〔Concord.〕I，第163页，ἀποκαθίστημι^* 条）；另参《马可福音》8:25的 ἀπεκατέστη^*。埃布拉德 (Ebrard，《科学批判》〔Wiss. Krit.〕，第1054页) 引用伪卢奇安 (Pseudo-Lucian)《爱国者》(Philiopatr.) 第27章的一段文字，其中出现了 ἀπεκατέστησε^*。↩︎
诺顿 (Norton) 先生在《福音书真实性的证据》(Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels，波士顿，1875年版，第464页及下页) 中，极为充分地阐明了这一事实。我将他的结论引述如下：“《马太福音》中，与另外两卷福音书之一或二者措辞相同的段落，不到全书内容的六分之一；其中约八分之七出现在复述他人的话语中，只有约八分之一出现于我为便于区分而称作纯粹叙事的部分。在这部分中，福音书作者以自己的身份叙述，选择措辞时不受拘束。《马可福音》中，相同段落约占全书内容的六分之一，其中在叙事部分出现的不到五分之一。路加与其他福音书作者在措辞上的一致更少。存在这种一致的段落，仅占其福音书的十分之一左右；其中只有微不足道的一部分出现在叙事中，而叙事中连续六个以上词语相同的实例很少。就叙事而言，可以估计相同措辞不到二十分之一。这些确定的比例很重要，因为它们清楚表明，每卷福音书与另外两卷中任何一卷在措辞上相同的部分是何等少，而这种相同又在何等大的程度上，仅限于作者明确表示是在转述他人、尤其是耶稣话语的段落。不过，还应将这些比例与各卷福音书中叙事部分和明确转述他人话语部分所占的比例进一步比较。马太的叙事约占其福音书的四分之一，马可约占二分之一，路加约占三分之一。因此，不难算出，各卷福音书叙事部分中措辞相同的比例，与另一部分中的相同比例相比，大约如下：马太为一比略多于二，马可为一比四，路加为一比十……我们不能假定各卷福音书彼此抄录，或全部抄自共同文献，来解释这一现象；因为，如果抄录是其成因，就不会在福音书自然划分的不同部分中产生如此不均等的结果。”↩︎
《新约圣书史》(Geschichte der heil. Schriften N. Test.)，I，第175页（第5版，1874年）。另见他的《福音史》(Histoire Evangelique)，巴黎，1876年（《新约》〔Nouveau Testament〕，第I部分）。↩︎
见韦斯科特 (Westcott)《福音书导论》(Introd. to the Gospels)，第5版，第191页。↩︎
《历史》等（Gesch., etc.），I，第175页；汤姆森 (Thomson) 大主教在《议长新约注释》(Speaker’s Com. New Test.)，第I卷，第viii页，沿用此说。↩︎
见上列文献。伦敦的埃德温·A. 阿博特 (Edwin A. Abbott) 博士提出编纂此书的建议，并在《大英百科全书》(Encycl. Brit.) 的“福音书”条目中引用了一个范例（但全部以黑体印出）。他据此得出支持马可优先的结论，认为马太和路加曾借用马可。该范例是凶恶园户的比喻：《马太福音》21:33–44；《路加福音》20:9–18；《马可福音》12:1–11。↩︎
以下线条表示三卷福音书的相对篇幅，显示它们措辞相同与相异的程度。圆点将线条分为两半，竖线将其分为三等份：

路加，———— ––——————————

马可，———|—•—|———

马太，—————•——————↩︎
德国学者对这些不同的假说有便于使用的术语，如 Benützungshypothese（“借用”假说）、Urevangeliumshypothese（原始福音书假说）、Traditionshypothese（传统假说）、Tendenzhypothese（倾向假说）、Combinationshypothese（综合假说）、Diegesentheorie（叙事片段说）、Markushypothese（马可假说）、Urmarkushypothese（原始马可假说）等。见本节末附注（II）。↩︎
近来的英国作者以此作为 Benützungshypothese（借用假说）的译词。↩︎
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 也不例外，因为他只是说（见优西比乌《教会史》〔H. E.〕VI. 14），包含家谱的福音书（马太和路加）最先写成，其次是马可，最后是约翰。↩︎
持此说的有魏塞 (Weisse)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、里奇尔 (Ritschl)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、普利特 (Plitt)、迈耶 (Meyer)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)、曼戈尔德 (Mangold)、戈代 (Godet)、魏斯 (Weis)。见迈耶《马太福音注释》(Matthew)，第34页（第6版），以及《路加福音注释》(Luke)，第238页（魏斯〔Weiss〕编第6版，1878年）。只有图宾根 (Tübingen) 的“倾向批判家”坚持相反意见；而他们若要坚持所认定的路加成书较晚的年代，就几乎非如此不可。路加若是在第二世纪，甚至第一世纪末写作，就绝不可能不知道马太。然而，恰恰是他的独立性，证明了他成书的年代较早。↩︎
赞成路加使用马可的，有罗伊斯 (Reuss)、魏斯 (Weiss)，以及大多数原始马可假说 (Urmarkushypothese) 的倡导者。反对这种使用关系的，有魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)、戈代 (Godet)，以及所有（随从格里斯巴赫〔Griesbach〕）认为马可节录了马太和路加的人。法勒 (Farrar) 在《路加福音注释》(Com. on Luke) 第9页，也极其坚决地主张路加既独立于马太，也独立于马可。他说：“可以视为确定的是，路加在这些‘尝试’之中，并未把圣马太和圣马可的福音书算在内。当我们把他们共同叙述的任何一件事并列比较，注意到即使在大体相似之中，仍不断出现细微而无法解释的差异时，就会极其强烈地得出这样的推论：他或者不知道这些福音书的存在，或者没有直接使用它们。”↩︎
比较医治瘫子的记载：《马可福音》2:3–12与《马太福音》9:2–8；施洗约翰被杀的记载：《马可福音》6:14–29与《马太福音》14:1–13、《路加福音》9:7–9；医治被鬼附的孩子的记载：《马可福音》9:14–29与《马太福音》17:14–21及《路加福音》9:37–43；另参彼得不认主的记载。↩︎
我特别指维尔克 (Wilke) 的《原始福音书作者》(Der Urevangelist, 1838年)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 的《对观福音书》(Die Synopt. Evang., 1863年)，以及魏斯 (Weiss) 的《马可福音及其对观平行经文》(Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen, 1872年；另参其《马太福音》〔Matthäusevangelium〕等，1876年）。魏斯竭力维护约翰福音的真实性，因此他的意见尤其值得倾听。见本节末的附注。费舍尔 (Fisher) 博士认为，“马可相对于其他福音书的独立性，是近代批判研究最为确实、最有价值的成果之一。”《基督教的起源》(The Beginnings of Christianity)，第275页。戴维森 (Davidson) 博士在其《导论》(Introduction) 的“修订改进版”第I卷，第551–563页，仍坚持图宾根 (Tübingen) 学派的旧立场，认为马可依赖马太和路加，却无视维尔克、霍尔茨曼、魏斯、勒南 (Renan) 的著作，以及他的同胞阿博特 (Abbott) 在《不列颠百科全书》(Encycl. Brit.) 中的文章。↩︎
霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、曼戈尔德 (Mangold)、E. A. 阿博特 (E. A. Abbott) 等人追溯到一部虚构的《原始马可福音》(Urmarkus)；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、迈耶 (Meyer) 和魏斯 (Weiss) 则以我们现有的正典《马可福音》为马太和路加的基础，但加上一个重要的补充：马可本人除了彼得的口传以外，还使用了已佚的希伯来文《马太福音》，更确切地说，是它的一种希腊文译本；这部书不只是言论集（σύνταξις τῶν λογίων^*），还包括简短的叙事。然而，马可若是手头已有主的丰富言论集，那么他在这方面的贫乏就更加难以解释了。↩︎
《路加福音》1:2：καθὼς παρέδοσαν^*（借着活的口述传下）ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς^*（即从基督公开传道之初；参《使徒行传》1:21及下节；《约翰福音》15:27）αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου^*（指同一批人）。↩︎
许多经文提到听福音的人和听福音，如《马太福音》13:14；《路加福音》7:1；《约翰福音》12:38；《使徒行传》17:20；《罗马书》2:13；《帖撒罗尼迦前书》2:13；《雅各书》1:22、23、25。“诵读”（ἀναγινώσκειν^*）一词大多用于旧约：《马太福音》12:3、5；21:16、42；24:15；《马可福音》25；12:10、26；13:14；《路加福音》4:16；6:3；10:26；《使徒行传》8:28、30、32；13:27；15:21等；用于保罗书信的有：《以弗所书》3:4；《歌罗西书》4:16；《帖撒罗尼迦前书》6:27；用于《启示录》的有：《启示录》1:3；5:4。↩︎
拉比的规则（载于 Shabb.，f. 15, 1）是：“Verba praeceptoris sine ulla immutatione, ut prolata ab illo fuerunt. erant recitanda, ne diversa illi affingeretur sententia. ”即：“必须照着教师说出的话诵述，不作任何改动，免得把不同的意思强加给他。”↩︎
勒南 (Renan)，《福音书》(Les Evangiles)，第96页：“La tradition vivante（ζῶσα φωνὴ καὶ μένουσα^*，帕皮亚〔Papias〕）était le grand réservoir où tous puisaient .... Le même phénomène se retrouve, du reste, dans presque toutes les littératures sacrées. Les Védas ont traversé des siècles sans être éerits; un homme qui se respectait devait les savoir par coeur. Celui qui avait besoin d’un manuscrit pour rêciter ces hymnes antiques faisait un aveu d’ignorance; aussi les copies n’en ont-elles jamais été estimées. Citer de mémoire la Bible, le Coran, est encore de nos jours un point d’honneur pour les 0rientaux. ”即：“活的传统是人人从中汲取的大蓄水池……此外，几乎一切神圣文献中都可见同样的现象。《吠陀》历经数世纪而未曾写成文字；一个自重的人应当能将它们背诵出来。谁若需要手稿才能诵读这些古老的颂歌，就等于承认自己无知；因此，它们的抄本从来不受重视。直到今日，凭记忆引用《圣经》或《古兰经》，仍是东方人引以为荣的事。”勒南认为，新约引用旧约的经文大多出于记忆。我自己的观察，以及居住东方的朋友们的观察，都证实了阿拉伯人口传传统的一致性，以及他们记忆力的惊人强健。↩︎
在这类推测中，艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn)、马什 (Marsh)、施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)、维蒂兴 (Wittichen) 和勒南 (Renan) 表现了极大的巧思，也积累了大量的 docta ignorantia（博学的无知）。↩︎
《路加福音》1:1：πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν^*（表明这项事业的困难，可能也表明其完成得不够充分）ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων^*。↩︎
关于这一结论（我三十年前已在《使徒教会史》〔Hist. of the Ap. Ch.〕初版中提出），研究对观福音问题的一些最有才干的学者，也各自独立地得出了相同的看法，如兰格 (Lange)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)（《福音历史的科学批判》〔Wissenschaftliche Kritik der ev. Gesch.〕，第3版，第1044页及后）、诺顿 (Norton)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、戈代 (Godet)、韦斯科特 (Westcott)、法勒 (Farrar)。阿尔福德说（第I卷《绪论》〔Proleg.〕，第6版，第11页）：“对观福音书包含使徒见证的实质，其材料主要采自他们在教会中流传的口头教导，也有一部分采自载有部分教导的书面文献；然而，从它们的内部结构来看，我们没有理由相信三位福音书作者中的任何一位曾接触过另外两部福音书中任何一部的现有形式，反倒有充分理由不相信这一点。”戈代以如下的话结束他的讨论（《路加福音注释》〔Com. on Luke〕，第2版，美国版，第556页）：“若假定我们任何一部对观福音书的作者面前已有另外两部，或其中一部，那么我们所设想的他对耶稣的历史和言论所作的处理，其任意与不敬，实在无以复加。只有当我们对寻找其他解释已完全绝望时，这种解释才可容许。即使如此，仍不如说：Non liquet（尚不明了）。因为这种解释包含着道德上的矛盾。我们今日的大多数批判家对此深有认识，所以转而采取折中的办法。”↩︎
爱任纽 (Irenaeus)，III. 1, 1；俄利根 (Origen)，见优西比乌 (Eusebius)《教会史》(H. E.)，VI. 25；德尔图良 (Tertullian) 及其他人。爱任纽给出这一次序，并附上大致的时间资料：“彼得和保罗在罗马传道、奠定教会根基的时候，马太用希伯来人自己的方言，在他们中间刊行了一部书面的福音书。他们离去之后，彼得的门徒兼传译者马可，也将彼得所传讲的写下来，传给了我们。保罗的同伴路加，也把保罗所传的福音记在一部书中。后来，主的门徒约翰，就是曾靠在主胸膛上的那一位，住在亚细亚的以弗所时，也亲自刊行了一部福音书。”亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 有所不同，他把马可放在马太和路加之后，却仍在彼得去世以前；因为他说（见优西比乌《教会史》，VI. 14），彼得在罗马宣讲福音时，听众请求马可将其写下来，马可便照办了，彼得既未阻止，也未鼓励。照这一看法，对观福音书的作者就都应在64年以前写成了他们的书。↩︎
Μαθθαῖος^*，《马太福音》9:9（依照א^* B* D的拼写，为拉赫曼〔Lachmann〕、蒂申多夫〔Tischendorf〕、特雷格尔斯〔Tregelles〕、韦斯科特和霍特〔Westcott and Hort〕所采用），或Ματθαῖος^*（公认本文〔text. rec.〕的拼写），与马提亚 (Matthias) 和玛他提亚 (Mattathias) 一样，意为耶和华的恩赐（מַתִּיָּה, מַתַּנְיָה, מַתָּאי, מַתַּי^*），相当于希腊文的西奥多 (Theodore)。他可能是在蒙召以后采用这个名字的；据《马可福音》2:12；《路加福音》5:27、29，他原来的名字是利未 (Levi)，Λευίς^*、Λευείς^*（לֵוִי^*，意为联合）。新名字掩盖了旧名字，正如彼得和保罗的名字取代了西门和扫罗一样。三位对观福音书作者以相同的措辞叙述马太或利未的蒙召，随后又记下同一番言论，由此可知，他们显然是同一个人。尼科尔森 (Nicholson)（《马太福音注释》〔Com. on Matt.〕9:9）否认二者为一人，正如先前的格劳秀斯 (Grotius) 和西弗特 (Sieffert) 一样，但依据不足。在《马可福音》3:16以前，彼得被称为原来的名字西门（《马可福音》1:16、29、30、36），马可由此显出他处理历史的分寸。↩︎
因此称为Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης^*，即“税吏马太”，《马太福音》10:3。他加上自己先前的职业，是要表明上帝恩典在他归信之中所显出的能力。↩︎
将《马太福音》10:3与《马可福音》3:18、《路加福音》6:15比较。但在《使徒行传》1:13的名单中，他与巴多罗买并列，而多马则与腓力并列。↩︎
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 将他描绘为一个严格的犹太基督徒，不食肉类。这就会使他成为保罗（《罗马书》14:1及下）以爱心论断的那些软弱弟兄之一。但第一福音书中没有任何内容可以证实这一传统。↩︎
主张马太在时间上居先、在地位上相对优越的，不仅有奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 和大公教会的传统，还有从格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach) 到布莱克 (Bleek) 的温和自由派批判家，甚至包括图宾根 (Tübingen) 学派的激进批判家（鲍尔〔Baur〕、施特劳斯〔Strauss〕、施韦格勒〔Schwegler〕、策勒〔Zeller〕、希尔根费尔德〔Hilgenfeld〕、戴维森〔Davidson〕），尤其是凯姆 (Keim)。↩︎
《路加福音》5:29如此记载。《马可福音》2:15（“有好些税吏和罪人与耶稣并门徒一同坐席”）及《马太福音》9:10（“有好些税吏和罪人”）与此一致；但马太谦逊地在这次筵席的记载中略去了自己的名字。有些注释家把“房子”理解为耶稣的房子，但耶稣没有房子，也没有设过宴席。路加明确说，这是利未的房子。↩︎
卡尔 (Carr)，《注释》(Com.)，第6页。↩︎
《路加福音》5:28；《马可福音》2:14；《马太福音》9:9。↩︎
《马太福音》5:35（“耶路撒冷是大君的京城”）；23:1（“坐在摩西的位上”）；23:16（“指着殿起誓”）；16:28；24:15（“在圣地”；“读这经的人须要会意”），以及第24章全章。↩︎
《马太福音》5:17；15:24；参10:6。↩︎
胡格 (Hug)、布莱克 (Bleek)、奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、迈耶 (Meyer)、赖姆 (Reim)、兰格 (Lange) 及大多数注释家，将成书年代定在60至69年之间；其他作者则将其提前到37至45年（但这与《马太福音》27:8；28:15相冲突）。鲍尔 (Baur) 将希腊文《马太福音》推迟到哈德良 (Hadrian) 统治下耶路撒冷第二次被毁之时，即130至134年，这一观点已被推翻。甚至福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 也把它定得早得多（105至115年），希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)（《新约导论》〔Einleitung in das N. T.〕，第497页）定在耶路撒冷被毁后不久，凯姆 (Keim) 则定在公元66年。塞缪尔·戴维森 (Samuel Davidson) 博士在其《新约导论》(Introd. to the N. T.) 第2版（伦敦，1882年，第I卷，第413–416页）中，随福尔克马尔将现有希腊文《马太福音》定在105年，但假定另有一部亚兰文原本，以及由它写成的希腊文意译本，都是在耶路撒冷被毁以前写成的。他认为，“将耶路撒冷的陷落、圣殿的毁灭和世界末日连在一起的末世言论，已被历史证伪”（？）；因此，耶稣并未说过现有记载中的那些话，而是后来收录这些言论的作者将犹太人的观念和表达方式掺入其中，加以修订和改动（I. 403）。↩︎
比较《马太福音》15:2与《马可福音》7:3、4。《马太福音》27:46将十字架上的呼喊译出，是为说希腊语的犹太人而作的。↩︎
此说出自戈代 (Godet)，《新约研究》(Studies on the New Testament)，第23页。↩︎
ἵνα^*（或ὅπως^*）πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν^*，或τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθέν^*。这一用语在马太出现十二次（1:22；2:15、17、23；4:14；8:17；12:17；13:35；21:4；26:56；27:9、35），在约翰出现六次，却从未在路加或马可出现；因为公认本文 (text. rec.) 中的《马可福音》15:28（καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ κ. τ. λ.^*）是伪加的，很可能采自《路加福音》22:37而插入。↩︎
参《马太福音》2:1–12；8:11、12；11:21；12:41；15:21–28；《马太福音》第23、24章
；28:19
、20。↩︎
详尽分析见魏斯 (Weiss) 的批判性专著，以及兰格 (Lange) 的《马太福音》(Matth.)，第43–46页。凯姆 (Keim) 的《耶稣史》(Geschichte Jesu)——在纯粹批判性的基督传记中，此书最为出色，也最少可议之处——主要以马太为根据；他称赞其布局为 sorgfältig, einfach und einleuchtend, durchsichtig und sehr wohl durchgeführt，即精心安排、简明易懂、清晰透彻，而且贯彻得十分妥善（I. 52）。他将全书分为两大部分：以悔改的呼召 (Bussruf) 和天国的宣讲 (Reichspredigt) 开始公开传道（4:17：ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν, κ. τ. λ.^*）；以受难的宣告 (Leidensruf) 和将来的宣讲 (Zukunftspredigt) 踏上死亡之路（《马太福音》16:21：ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰης., κ. τ. λ.^*）。他还在十个神迹、八［七］福、七祸、四个和三个比喻、三次试探等的编排中，发现了巧妙的数字对称。↩︎
关于马太及其他福音书作者文体的详细讨论，见我的《希腊文新约研读指南》(Companion to the Study of the Greek Testament)，第3版，1888年，第43页及后。↩︎
见我论《十二使徒遗训》(Didache) 的著作，纽约 (N. York)，第3版，1889年，第61–88页。↩︎
《巴拿巴书信》(Ep. Barn.)，第4章末尾：προσέχωμεν, μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.^*。自从在《西奈抄本》(Codex Sinaiticus) 中发现此书信完整的希腊文本以来（1859年；其中本书信接在《启示录》之后），关于γέγραπται^*（scriptum est，“经上记着说”）这一引文公式，便再无疑问。第5章所引的另一段话出自《马太福音》9:13：οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλά ἁμαρτωλούς.^*。《巴拿巴书信》写于第一世纪末或第二世纪初。有人将其年代定在早至公元70年，也有人定在晚至120年。《十二使徒遗训》则更早。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius)，《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 39：Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστής, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς^*。这里的“约翰”究竟是使徒，还是那位神秘的“长老约翰”，尚有争议，将在第二卷论帕皮亚 (Papias) 的一节中讨论。优西比乌本人明确区分两位约翰。帕皮亚的年代，必须随他的“同伴”坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的年代一同向前推若干年；后者于155年（并非164年）殉道。《复活节编年史》(Chronicon Paschale) 说帕皮亚约于同一时期在别迦摩 (Pergamum) 殉道，这是将优西比乌《教会史》IV. 15末尾的 PAPULOS 误作 PAPIAS。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 载于1875年8月《当代评论》(Contemp. Review) 的文章，第381页及后。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eus.)，《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.)，III. 39：Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνατάξατο^*（或依海尼兴 (Heinichen)，I. 150的异读，作συναγράψατο^*），ἠρμήνευσε δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος^*。施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)（《研究与评论》〔Studien und Kritiken〕，1832年）、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)（《符类福音》〔Synopt. Evang.〕，第248页及后）、魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)（《福音历史研究》〔Untersuchungen üb. d. ev. Gesch.〕，第27页及后）、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)（《年鉴》〔Jahrbücher〕，VI.，第55页及后）、察恩 (Zahn)（《研究与评论》〔Stud. u. Kritiken〕，1866年，第649页及后）、施泰茨 (Steitz)（同刊，1868年，第63页及后）、凯姆 (Keim)（《拿撒勒人耶稣史》〔Gesch. Jesu v. Naz.〕，I.，第56页及后）、迈耶 (Meyer)（《马太福音注释》〔Com. Evang. Matth.〕，第6版，1876年，第4页及后）、莱特福特（1875年8月《当代评论》〔Contemp. Review〕，第396–403页）以及魏斯 (Weiss)（《马太福音》〔Das Matthäusevang.〕，1876年，第1页及后），都对这项见证作过深入讨论。↩︎
持此说的有首先对这段文字作批判性考察的施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher，1832年)，以及施内肯巴格尔 (Schneckenbarger，1834年)、拉赫曼 (Lachmann，1835年)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、迈耶 (Meyer，第11页)。据此推想，马太的希伯来文福音书，与帕皮亚已经失传的著作相似，所不同的是：前者只是主的言论（τῶν λογίων κυριακῶν^*）的汇编（σύνταξις^*或συγγραφή^*），后者则是解释（ἐξήγησις^*）。↩︎
持此说的有吕克 (Lücke，1833年)、克恩 (Kern)、胡格 (Hug)、哈勒斯 (Harless)、安格尔 (Anger)、布莱克 (Bleek)、鲍尔 (Baur)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、兰格 (Lange)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、凯姆 (Keim)、察恩 (Zahn)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、汤姆森 (Thomson)、凯尔 (Keil)、魏斯 (Weiss)（不过最后一位将叙事部分限于一条极为简略的线索）。主要论据是：1．自爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 起，一切提到希伯来文马太的早期作者，所指的都是一部与我们的希腊文《马太福音》相应的正规福音书；2．帕皮亚论《马可福音》的平行段落（优西比乌，III. 39），其中“主的言论”（λόγοι κυριακοί^*）显然既包括言语，也包括行为：τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα.^*。不过，那里带着几分贬意，说马可（与马太相比）并未“有次序地编排主的话”（οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων^*）。《罗马书》3:1支持λογία^*一词较广的含义；那里说犹太人受托保管的τὰ λογία τοῦ θεοῦ^*，包括整部旧约圣经；《希伯来书》5:12“上帝圣言小学的开端”（τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ^*）也是如此。莱特福特还引用了斐洛 (Philo)、罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)、坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 和俄利根 (Origen) 的段落（前引著作，l.c.，第400页及下页）。↩︎
持此说的有韦特施泰因 (Wetstein)、胡格 (Hug)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、布莱克 (Bleek)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、里奇尔 (Ritschl)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、凯姆 (Keim)、德里奇 (Delitzsch)、凯尔 (Keil)。这些作者中，有人假定《希伯来人福音》是伊便尼派 (Ebionites) 对希腊文《马太福音》的翻译和修订本。德里奇和凯尔便持此说（《注释》〔Com.〕，第23页）。凯姆断言（I. 54），如今几乎无人相信有希伯来文《马太福音》，这是错误的。迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯 (Weiss) 等人捍卫相反的意见，而且这一意见在英国神学家中占优势。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius，III. 39) 称他为σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν^*，即“心智极为狭隘”；但上下文表明，这是因他持千禧年论而说的。在另一处，他称帕皮亚为学识渊博、精通圣经的人（III. 39：τὰ πάντα μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων^*）。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，III. 1, 1：ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.^*。这一年代说明并不完全准确，因为彼得和保罗都不是亲自在罗马创立教会的人；然而，罗马教会确是藉着他们的影响和门徒而建立，又因他们的亲临和殉道而得到巩固。↩︎
据优西比乌 (Eus.)《教会史》(H.E.) 10记载，他在印度（可能是在阿拉伯南部）发现了希伯来文（Ἑβραίων γράμμασι^*）《马太福音》，是使徒之一巴多罗买留在那里的。这项见证肯定独立于帕皮亚。但所指究竟是希伯来文原本，还是希伯来文译本，则仍可存疑。↩︎
见优西比乌 (Eus.)《教会史》(H. E.)，VI. 25。不过，俄利根 (Origen) 关于希伯来文《马太福音》的记述，并非出于亲知，而是得自传统（ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθών^*）。↩︎
《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 24：Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἔμελλε καὶ ἐφ’ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ κατ’ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις, ἀφ’ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου.^*。“马太起初用希伯来语传福音；当他也将前往其他民族那里时，便用本族语言将福音写成文字，藉着这本书，补足他不在他们中间的缺憾。”↩︎
《教理讲授》(Catech.) 14：Ματθ. ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἑβραΐδι γλώσσῃ.^*。↩︎
《驳异端》(Haer.)，XXX. 3；比较 LI. 5。↩︎
《马太福音注释序言》(Praef. in Matth.)；《马太福音》12:13注释；《驳伯拉纠派对话》(Dial. c Pelag.)，III，第2章；《名人传》(De Vir. illustr.)，第2、3章。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的见证有些相互抵牾。他曾从叙利亚庇哩亚 (Beraea) 的拿撒勒派 (Nazarenes) 得到一部希伯来文马太，以供抄录（392年）。但后来（415年），他似乎发现，凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 潘斐卢 (Pamphilus) 藏书中那部被认为是希伯来文《马太福音》的书，其实是《希伯来人福音》（Evangelium juxta，或 secundum Hebraeos）；他将此书翻译成希腊文和拉丁文（《名人传》〔De vir. ill.〕，第2章）。倘若这部希伯来文福音书只是正典《马太福音》的原本，这样做便毫无必要。见魏斯 (Weiss)，前引著作，l.c.，第7页及下页。↩︎
这部福音书（哲罗姆说：“quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae”，即“拿撒勒派和伊便尼派所用的”）的残篇，由克雷德纳 (Credner) 收集于《论集》(Beiträge)，I.，第380页及后；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 收集于 Nov. Test. extra can. rec.，IV.；尤其是尼科尔森 (Nicholson)，在上引著作中作了收集。它远胜其他伪经福音书，又与希伯来文马太十分相似，以至许多人将二者混同，正如哲罗姆在《马太福音》12:13注释（ad Matth.）中所说：“quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum”，即“多数人称之为马太的真本”；又见《驳伯拉纠派》(C. Pelag.)，III. 2。图宾根学派 (Tübingen) 的看法（鲍尔、施韦格勒〔Schwegler〕、希尔根费尔德）颠倒了自然的次序，将这部异端福音书看作原始马太福音（Urmatthaeus，proto-Matthew），而我们的希腊文《马太福音》，则是迟至130年才据此改造而成的正统版本；但凯姆 (Keim，I.，第29页及后)、迈耶 (Meyer，第19页) 和魏泽 (Weise，第8、9页)，已充分驳斥了这一假说。尼科尔森修正了图宾根理论，假定马太在不同时期写了正典福音书，以及《希伯来人福音》中与之平行的那些部分。↩︎
见霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，第269页，以及埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 的《年鉴》(Jahrbücher)，IX.，第69页及后。↩︎
迈耶 (Meyer，第12页，反对霍尔茨曼) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot，第397页，反对《超自然宗教》〔Supern. Rel.〕的作者) 持此说。施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher) 将ἡρμήνευσε^*解释为叙事性的增补，这是错误的。↩︎
《马太福音》21:41：κακούς κακῶς ἀπολέσει^*，pessimos pessime（或 malos male）perdet，即“要狠狠地灭绝那些恶人”。英文修订本将这一谐音双关（英文通行本已将其抹去）再现为：“他要悲惨地灭绝那些悲惨的人。”其他文字游戏还有：Πέτρος^*与πέτρα^*，16:18；βαττολογεῖν^*与πολυλογία^*，6:7；ἀφανίζουσιν ὅπως φανῶσι^*，“他们使自己的脸不堪显露（使面容变样），好叫自己显露出来”，6:16；比较24:7。魏斯 (Weiss) 从希腊文《马太福音》采用了希腊文《马可福音》这一点，推论前者原本即用希腊文写成；但这并不能解释上述及其他类似的段落。↩︎
哲罗姆 (Jerome) 首先注意到，马太所遵循的不是 Septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam，即不是七十位译者的权威，而是希伯来文本的权威（《名人传》〔De vir. illustr.〕，第3章）。克雷德纳 (Credner) 和布莱克 (Bleek) 更充分地阐明了这一重要区别，霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)（《符类福音》〔Die Syn. Evang.〕，第259页）、里奇尔 (Ritschl)、克斯特林 (Köstlin)、凯姆 (Keim，I.，第59页及后)、迈耶 (Meyer，第9页) 和魏斯 (Weiss，第44页) 也都予以确认。但希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和凯姆不必要地从这一事实中看出一位后期编者的痕迹；这位编者只存在于他们批判性的想象中。↩︎
哲罗姆 (Jerome) 承认译者身份不确定，《名人传》(De vir. ill.)，第3章：Quis postea in Graecum transtulerit［希伯来文马太］，non satis certum est.——“后来是谁将其译成希腊文，并不十分确定。”关于译者，历来有不同归属：有人认为是主的兄弟雅各（《伪亚他那修综览》〔Synops. Pseudo-Athan.〕），有人认为是马太的一位门徒，或另一位门徒。↩︎
本格尔 (Bengel)、盖里克 (Guericke)、朔特 (Schott)、奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch) 持此说。↩︎
迈耶 (Meyer) 和魏斯 (Weiss) 将基督钉十字架时死人复活的记载，以及守卫坟墓的故事（《马太福音》27:52、62–66），视为使徒之后的传说；但前者并不比拉撒路复活更难接受，后者则具有内在可信性的一切标志。迈耶还无端假定，关于钉十字架的日期，必须根据约翰来纠正马太；然而符类福音与约翰所记的日期之间，并无真正的矛盾。见第133页。迈耶的意见是：马太只用希伯来文编集了我们主的言论；某位不知名的人很早便增添了叙事部分；另一位匿名作者则在70年以前将其译成希腊文，而这译本就内容而言，被普遍且正当地视为马太的著作（第14、23页）。但这一切全是纯粹的猜测。↩︎
马库斯 (Marcus) 及其指小形式马尔凯卢斯 (Marcellus，“小槌”)，都是著名的罗马名字。马库斯·图利乌斯·西塞罗 (Marcus Tullius Cicero) 曾写过一篇《为马库斯·马尔凯卢斯辩护》(pro Marco Marcello) 的演说。↩︎
《使徒行传》12:12、25；13:5、13；15:37；《歌罗西书》4:10；《提摩太后书》4:11；《腓利门书》24；《彼得前书》5:13。↩︎
这里将“儿子”按字面理解（如克雷德纳〔Credner〕所作的），并无充分理由，因为其比喻意义既完全符合圣经的用法，也完全符合我们从《使徒行传》和传统中确知的马可与彼得的亲密关系。传统提到彼得有一个女儿佩特罗尼拉 (Petronilla)，却没有提到他有儿子。亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 说：“彼得和腓利都生养了儿女。”↩︎
ἀνεψιός^*，《歌罗西书》4:10。↩︎
ἐμνημόνευσε^*。瓦卢瓦 (Valois)、拉德纳 (Lardner)、迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯 (Weiss)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 都如此翻译。克鲁泽 (Crusé) 和莫里森 (Morison) 所偏好的译法“记录”，使它与前面的 ἔγραψεν^* 意义重复。“他”可以指马可，也可以指彼得，较可能指前者。↩︎
ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λόγων^*（或作 λογίων^*，即神谕）。↩︎
优西比乌 (Euseb.)，《教会史》(Hist, Eccl.)，III. 39。关于这一重要见证的批判性讨论，见魏斯和莫里森，以及莱特福特载于《当代评论》(Contemp. Rev.) XXVI卷（1875年），第393页及下页的文章。把这段描述归于一部虚构的、正典形成以前的《马可福音》，丝毫没有证据；戴维森 (Davidson) 却仍如此主张（新版，I. 539）。↩︎
在罗马帝国，拉丁语是地方性的语言，希腊语则是通用语言。西塞罗 (Cicero) 说（《为阿尔基亚斯辩护》〔Pro Arch.〕，10）：“Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus; Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur.”（希腊文著作几乎在所有民族中都有人阅读；拉丁文著作却局限于自身的疆界，而那疆界实在狭小。）马可最初用拉丁文写福音书的传统出现得太晚，不值得相信。巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 为维护《武加大译本》而替这一传统辩护，并把成书时间提前到45年。威尼斯所谓《马可福音》的拉丁文亲笔原稿，不过是《武加大译本》的一个残篇。↩︎
殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)（《与特利丰对话》〔Dial.c. Tryph.〕，第106章）确实从“彼得的回忆录（ἀπομνημονεύματα^*）”中引用了西庇太两个儿子的称号“半尼其”，即“雷子”；但他显然指的是马可所写的福音书，因为唯有马可提到这件事，见《马可福音》3:17。↩︎
参见哲罗姆 (Jerome)、优西比乌 (Eusebius)、奥利金 (Origen)、德尔图良 (Tertullian)、亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、殉道者游斯丁和帕皮亚 (Papias) 的见证；基尔希霍费尔 (Kirchhofer) 的《正典性》(Canonicity，查特里斯〔Charteris〕编)，第141–150页，以及莫里森的《注释》(Com.)，第xx–xxxiv页，都有很好的汇集。↩︎
《马可福音》16:19：“主耶稣……被接到天上，坐在上帝的右边。”比较《彼得前书》3:22：“他已经进入天堂，在上帝的右边。”↩︎
《马可福音》8:27–33；与《马太福音》16:13–33比较。↩︎
《福音的明证》(Dem. Evang.)，III. 5，转引自莫里森，第xxxv页。鉴于上文所引的事实，读者可以自行判断戴维森博士的这项断言（《导论》〔Introd.〕，1882年，I卷，第541页）：“马可不是正典福音书的作者，这一点可以从该书在有关彼得的细节上并无特别显著之处这一事实推断出来。”↩︎
爱任纽（《驳异端》〔Adv. Haer.〕，III. 1）说是在彼得和保罗“离去之后”，即“post horum excessum”；优西比乌保存的希腊文原文则是 μετὰ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον^*（《教会史》〔H. E.〕，V. 8，海尼亨〔Heinichen〕编，1. 224）。这必定是指“他们去世之后”，而不是“他们离开罗马之后”（格拉贝〔Grabe〕的解释）。但亚历山大的革利免、奥利金、埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius)、优西比乌、哲罗姆及其他教父，都把成书时间定在彼得殉道以前。克里斯托弗森 (Christophorson)（在他1570年出版的优西比乌《教会史》拉丁译本中；据施蒂伦〔Stieren〕所编爱任纽《著作集》〔Op.〕，I. 423，注4转引）提出另一种读法：μετὰ τὴν ἔκδοσιν^*，即在上句所说的马太希伯来文福音书出版之后；莫里森（第xxv页）似乎倾向于接受这一猜测。这极不可能；所有抄本、鲁菲努 (Rufinus) 和爱任纽著作的拉丁文译者，都作 ἔξοδον^*。见施蒂伦，该处。只要区分成书在彼得去世之前、出版在他去世之后，这些相互冲突的说法便很容易调和。在那个时代，出版是指一本书的抄写与传播。↩︎
《使徒行传》10:38。彼得对哥尼流所讲的道，是《马可福音》的缩影。↩︎
兰格 (Lange)（《注释》〔Com.〕，第2页）：“马可自始至终描绘基督为胜过撒但一切权势的得胜者，这一形象尤为突出。他为我们留下了一份记录，记述那伟大的狮子攫住古代世界时基督能力的彰显，以及他短暂而具有决定性的胜利；此后只留下古代世界的废墟，而这些废墟又成为新世界的材料。”汤姆森 (Thomson)（《讲者注释》〔Speaker’s Com.〕，《福音书导论》〔Introd. to Gospels〕，第xxxv页）：“行奇事的上帝之子，迅疾如流星一般掠过他的国度；人们理当惊叹、敬拜。他的行踪有时被描写得突兀而神秘，使门徒敬畏：他在夜间离开他们；旅途中向他们隐藏自己。门徒既惊奇又惧怕（《马可福音》10:24、32）。福音书作者也意在使读者产生同样的敬畏之感。”↩︎
《马可福音》1:1公认经文 (textus rec.) 的读法 υἱοῦ (τοῦ) θεοῦ^*，有 א^* ABDL及几乎所有小草体抄本的支持；拉赫曼 (Lachmann) 和特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles) 将其保留在正文中，韦斯科特 (Westcott) 和霍特 (Hort) 则保留在页边。蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 在第8版中，根据他所偏爱的 א*^*（未经订正的原貌）及奥利金的见证，将其删去。爱任纽两种读法都有。这一称谓在马可书中出现七次，放在福音书的开头尤其合宜，而且本就是其书名的一部分。↩︎
《马可福音》3:17；5:41；7:1–4；12:18；15:6、35。↩︎
见兰格对《马可福音》的分析，《注释》(Com.)，第12–14页；又见他的《圣经知识》(Bibelkunde)，第185–187页。兰格发现了福音书的许多特征，后来不少书采用了这些发现，却未注明出处。↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler)、克斯特林 (Köstlin)，以及最近再度提出此说的戴维森博士，都是如此断言的；戴维森说（I. 505）：“这部福音书毫无色彩的中立性，是调和对立派别的一个重要因素。”莫里森博士（第xlvi页）针对图宾根学派 (Tübingen) 这种倾向批判，作了中肯的评论：“没有丝毫证据表明，《马可福音》相对于另外两部对观福音书，处于调停或息争中立的地位。把它的作者描绘成小心翼翼地驾驶其批判之舟，穿行于圣马太叙述中的某个斯库拉 (Scylla) 与圣路加叙述中的某个卡律布狄斯 (Charybdis) 之间，这纯粹是创造性想象的恣意妄为。圣马太的叙述中并没有斯库拉。若怀疑有，就必须凭空造出一个。圣路加的叙述中也没有卡律布狄斯。圣马可书中同样没有任何小心掌舵的迹象，也没有任何隐秘的目的地，仿佛密封的命令一般锁藏起来。所有福音书都全然透明而单纯，就是‘那在基督里的单纯’。”↩︎
埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 将马可的文体形容为 Schmelz der frischen Blume（鲜花的娇美光泽），又称之为 volle, reine Leben der Stoffe（题材充分而纯净的生命）；卡尼斯 (Kahnis) 称其为 drastisch（强烈生动）而 frappant（引人注目），迈耶则称其为 malerisch anschaulich（如画般鲜明可见）。兰格谈到其“表现的热情与生动，这说明了叙事何以简洁、迅速，略带戏剧性的语调，并加入使场景栩栩如生的细节”。↩︎
κῆνσος^*（census，人头税）、κεντυρίων^*（centurio，百夫长）、ξέστης^*（sextarius，一种容量单位）、σπεκουλάτωρ^*（speculator，侍卫），以及拉丁语化的短语 τὸ ἱκανόν ποιεῖν^*（satisfacere，使满足，《马可福音》15:15）、ἐσχάτως ἔχει^*（in extremis esse，濒临死亡）、συμβούλιον διδόναι^*（consilium dare，出主意）。马可甚至不用希腊的币名，而采用罗马的币名：κοδράντης^*（quadrans，四分之一阿司，12:42）。↩︎
εὐθέως^* 或 εὐθύς^* 在《马可福音》中出现四十一次（据布鲁德〔Bruder〕的《经文汇编》〔Concord.〕），几乎与其余新约著作中出现次数的总和相等。但文本读法存在一些差异。D抄本在若干处省去了这个词。英译本对措辞变化的偏爱实在不可原谅，它抹去了圣经作者的许多特征。单是这个小词，便用了不少于七种译法：straightway（随即）、immediately（立刻）、forthwith（马上）、as soon as（一……就）、by and by（不久）、shortly（旋即）和 anon（即刻）。↩︎
《马可福音》3:17；5:41；7:11、34；14:36；15:34。↩︎
《马可福音》1:21、40、44；2:3、10、17；11:1；14:43、66。↩︎
《马可福音》4:39；5:8、9、12；6:23、31；9:25；12:6。↩︎
例如 ἀναβλέψαι, ἐμβλέψας, περιβλεψάμενος, ἀναπηδήσας, κύψας, ἐμβριμησάμενος, ἐπιστραφείς ἀποστενάξας^*。↩︎
例如 παιδίον, κοράσιον, κυνάριον, θυγάτριον, ἰχθύδιον, ὠτάριον^*。↩︎
时间：《马可福音》1:35；2:1；4:35；6:2；11:11、19；15:25；16:2。地点：2:1
；5:20；7:31；12:41；13:3；14:68；15:39；16:5。↩︎
例如 ἀγρεύειν, ἄλαλος, ἀλεκτοροφωνία, γναφεύς, ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι, ἐξάπινα, ἐνειλέω, ἐξουδενόω, ἔννυχον, μογιλάλος, πρασιαὶ πρασιαί, προσάββατον, προμεριμνᾶν, προσορμίζεσθαι, συνθλίβειν, τηλαυγῶς, ὑπολήνιον^*，以及其他词。↩︎
《马可福音》1:22、27；2:12；4:41；6:2、51；10:24、26、32。↩︎
《马可福音》3:10、20、32；4:1；5:21、31；6:31、33。↩︎
《马可福音》6:34：“他就怜悯他们”；6:6：“他也诧异他们不信”（正如他也诧异那异教百夫长的大信心，《马太福音》8:10；《路加福音》7:8）；《马可福音》3:5：“他怒目周围看他们，忧愁他们的心刚硬”；8:12：“他心里深深地叹息”；10:14：他对门徒的行为“动了怒”，或说“甚不喜悦”。↩︎
《马可福音》1:31；3:5、34；5:32；7:33、34；8:12、33（“耶稣转过来，看着门徒，就责备彼得”）；9:35；10:23、32；11:11。↩︎
《马可福音》4:38；6:31；11:12。↩︎
《马可福音》10:21、22：ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἡγάπησεν αὐτόν^*。这必须按其自然的意义理解，不能淡化为“亲了他”、“温言对他说话”或“怜悯他”。莫里森在该处说，我们的救主“会在这青年人身上看出不少真正可爱之处，那是他部分领受并反映上帝恩典感化的结果。例如，他有坦诚和道德上的认真，有对肉体情欲的节制，也有心灵对来世事物的向往”。↩︎
《马可福音》9:21–25。比较《马太福音》17:14–18；《路加福音》9:37–42。↩︎
《马可福音》9:36；10:16；与《马太福音》18:2；19:13；以及《路加福音》9:48；18:16比较。↩︎
持此说的有奥古斯丁 (Augustin)、格里斯巴赫 (Griesbach)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、布莱克 (Bleek)、鲍尔、戴维森。↩︎
例如 C. H. 魏塞 (C. H. Weisse)、维尔克 (Wilke)、埃瓦尔德、兰格、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、伯恩哈德·魏斯 (Bernhard Weiss)、韦斯科特、阿博特 (Abbott)、莫里森。见本卷§79。↩︎
哲罗姆写信给高卢 (Gaul) 的一位虔诚女士赫迪比娅 (Hedibia) 说（书信CXX，第10章，载《著作集》〔Opera〕，米涅〔Migne〕编，I. 1002）：“Habebat ergo [Paulus] Titum interpretem; sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante（不是 dictante）, et illo [Marco] scribente, compositum est.”（所以，〔保罗〕有提多作翻译，正如蒙福的彼得有马可作翻译；马可的福音书由彼得讲述〔不是口授〕、他〔马可〕执笔而成。）此信于406或407年写于伯利恒。莫里森说（第xxxvii页）：“如果我们接受教父传统所述圣彼得与圣马可的关系，就会发现这部福音书的内容和结构与这一观念完全吻合，无一处抵牾。”↩︎
詹姆斯·史密斯 (James Smith) 在其《论福音书的起源与联系》(Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels) 中持此说，后来又在《论圣路加的生平与著作》(Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke) 中重申；后者置于其《圣保罗的航行与船难》(Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul) 第四版（1880年）之前，见第29页及下页。↩︎
“无论就内容、文体还是处理方式而言，《马可福音》本质上都是对生活实景的摹写。事实的进程与结局，在其中都以最清晰的轮廓呈现出来。即使反对福音叙事起源于神话的一切其他论据都不存在，单凭这份生动而朴实的记录，也足以驳倒一种颠覆人对历史一切信赖的理论；这记录具有极为鲜明的独立性与原创性印记，既全然不牵涉旧约时代的象征体系，也全然不依赖新约时代较深奥的推论。那些起初向罗马听众敏锐的理解力讲述的细节，至今对我们仍蕴含丰富的教益。在最初时代‘满足他们需要’的教导，如今也找到了相应的施展领域。”韦斯科特，前引书，第369页（美国版）。↩︎
《马可福音》16:16：ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται^*（信而受洗的，必然得救；不信的，必被定罪）。这项宣告取代了《马太福音》28:19中施洗的命令。它只适用于归信的信徒（ὁ πιστεύσας^*），不适用于尚不能作出相信或不信之举的儿童；然而，他们也包括在基督徒父母所蒙的圣约福分之内（参《哥林多前书》7:14）。因此，惟有主动的不信才使人被定罪，无论受洗与否；信心则通常伴随洗礼使人得救，在例外的情况下，没有洗礼也能使人得救。否则，我们就不得不定悔改的强盗、贵格会 (Quakers) 信徒以及一切未受洗婴孩的罪。圣奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 根据这段经文和《约翰福音》3:5（ἐξ ὕδατος^*），推导出水洗对于得救具有绝对而普遍的必要性这一教义；由此，这位伟大而良善的希坡 (Hippo) 主教又怀着不情愿的心，作出进一步的推论（在逻辑上成立，在神学上却不成立）：所有在婴儿期夭折而未受洗的婴孩，虽尚无能力犯下实际的过犯，却仅因亚当的罪而永远被定罪（或至少被排除在天国之外）。这至今仍是罗马教会的教义。十七世纪的一些加尔文主义神学家，对于被弃绝的婴孩（倘若真有这样的婴孩）持同样的看法，却容许蒙拣选婴孩的数目无限定地扩展到基督教世界的疆界之外。慈运理 (Zwingli) 则认为，所有在婴儿期夭折的婴孩都得救。幸而，人类的救主以他自己对待（未受洗）儿童的行为，以及他明确宣告天国属于他们、我们的天父不愿他们中的任何一个灭亡的话语，谴责了婴孩被定罪这一可怕的教义（dogma horribile）。见《马太福音》18:2–6；19:13–15；《马可福音》10:13–16；《路加福音》18:15–17。我们必须按照这些经文的亮光，解释曾被如此严重误解的《约翰福音》3:5和《马可福音》16:16。↩︎
γλώσσαις^* λαλήσουσιν^* καιναῖς^*。蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 保留καιναῖς^*；特雷格尔斯 (Tregelles)、韦斯科特 (Westcott) 和霍特 (Hort) 则将其置于页边，因为几部大写体抄本和古译本都省略了这个词。↩︎
俄利根 (Origen)、优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 错误地以为，保罗在《罗马书》2:16；16:25和《提摩太后书》2:8中说“我的福音”时，所指的是路加写成的福音书。除使徒时期以后所加的书名之外，“福音”一词在新约中并不用来指书面的记载；而且，路加的序言也与他在某一个人的指导下写成其著作的观念不相容。↩︎
Λουκᾶς^*，即 Lucas 这个名字，是 λυκανός^*，即 Lucanus 或 Lucilius 的缩写（正如 Apollos 缩自 Apollonius，Silas 缩自 Silvanus）。不可将此名与《使徒行传》13:1及《罗马书》16:21中的路求 (Lucius) 混同。这个名字并不常见，但正如洛贝克 (Lobeck) 所指出的，奴隶的名字常有以 as 结尾的缩写形式。普伦普特里博士 (Dr. Plumptre) 在其《注释》(Com.) 中巧妙地推测，路加来自意大利南部的卢卡尼亚 (Lucania) 地区，作为著名诗人 M. 安内乌斯·卢卡努斯 (M. Annaeus Lucanus) 的获释奴隶，遂以这位诗人的名字命名。他由此解释路加何以熟悉意大利的地方（《使徒行传》28:13–15），卢卡努斯的叔父 J. 安内乌斯·迦流 (J. Annaeus Gallic) 何以优待保罗（18:14–17），保罗与塞涅卡（迦流的兄弟）交好的传统，以及保罗计划前往西班牙的行程（《罗马书》15:28）；塞涅卡和卢卡努斯都出生于西班牙（科尔杜巴〔Corduba〕）。然而，年代与这一假说不合。卢卡努斯生于公元39年，那时路加必已约三十岁，因为他不可能比保罗年轻很多。↩︎
哲罗姆在《致保利努书》(Ep. ad Paulinum) 中论路加说：“Fuit medicus, et pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis sunt medicinae.”（他是一位医生，同样，他的一切话语也都是医治患病灵魂的良药。）↩︎
参《加拉太书》4:13；《哥林多后书》1:9；4:10、12、16；12:7。↩︎
《歌罗西书》4:14将他与“奉割礼的人”区别开来；参4:11。↩︎
优西比乌，III. 4：Λουκᾶς τὸ μὲν γένος ὢν τῶν ἀπ’ Ἀντιοχείας, τὴν ἐπιστήμην δὲ ἰατρός, κ. τ. λ.^*（路加，论出身是安提阿人，论专业则是医生，等等）。哲罗姆，《名人传》(De vir. ill.)，7：“Lucas medicus Antiochensis ... sectator apostoli Pauli, et omnis peregrinationis ejus comes.”（安提阿的医生路加……是使徒保罗的追随者，也是他一切旅程的同伴。）↩︎
詹姆斯·史密斯 (James Smith)（前引书〔l.c.〕，第4页）用以下事实说明这项记载在论证中的意义：关于1812年俄国战役的八部记述，三部出自法国作者，三部出自英国作者，两部出自苏格兰作者（司各特〔Scott〕和艾利森〔Alison〕）；只有最后这两部提到俄国将军巴克莱·德·托利 (Barclay de Tolly) 的苏格兰血统。↩︎
哲罗姆，《名人传》(De vir. ill.)，7：“Sepultus est Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa eius cum reliquiis Andreae apostoli translata sunt.”（他葬于君士坦丁堡；君士坦提乌斯〔Constantius〕在位第二十年，他的遗骨与使徒安得烈的遗骸一同迁至该城。）↩︎
因此，古老传统所说他是七十个门徒之一，或是以马忤斯两个门徒之一，不可能属实。↩︎
例如，将《路加福音》8:22–25平静风浪的记述与《马可福音》4:35–41比较；又将《路加福音》20:9–19恶园户的比喻与《马可福音》12:1–12比较。↩︎
《路加福音》1:3：πᾶσιν—ἀκριβῶς—καθεξῆς^*。戈代 (Godet) 说：“马太将教义性的教训汇集为长篇讲论；他是一位传道者。马可按照事件浮现于心的次序加以叙述；他是一位记事者。路加则再现事件内在与外在的发展；他才是严格意义上的历史家。”↩︎
《路加福音》1:4：κράτιστε Θεόφιλε^*。《使徒行传》1:1省略了这一尊称。本格尔 (Bengel) 据此推断，路加写《使徒行传》时，与提阿非罗 (Theophilus) 的关系已更加亲近。同样的称号也用于巡抚腓力斯和非斯都，见《使徒行传》23:26；24:3；20:25。钦定本 (A. V.) 分别译作“最卓越的”（most excellent）和“最高贵的”（most noble）；修订本 (R. V.) 则一律译作“最卓越的”，而这更容易使人想到道德品格，而非社会地位。“尊贵的”（Honorable）或“最高贵的”会更妥当。不过，这个词偶尔也用于私人朋友之间（见韦特施泰因〔Wetstein〕所引各段）。↩︎
关于提阿非罗的其他推测，有的认为他住在亚历山大，有的认为在罗马，或希腊的某处；见维纳 (Winer) 和史密斯 (Smith) 的《圣经辞典》(Bible Dicts.) 中提阿非罗条（sub Theophilus）。有人设想，这不过是一个理想化的名字，代表每一位心术端正、爱好真理的福音书读者。↩︎
《路加福音》1:4：ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης τὴν ἀσφάλειαν^*。↩︎
《路加福音》1:26；4:31；23:51；24:13（《使徒行传》1:12）。↩︎
关于内容的完整分析，见范奥斯特泽 (Van Oosterzee)，《注释》(Com.)，第8–10页；韦斯科特，《福音书导论》(Introd. to the G.)，第370–372页（美国版）；麦克莱伦 (McClellan)，《新约注释》(Com. on N. T.)，I. 425–438；法勒 (Farrar)，《注释》(Com.)，第31–36页；兰格 (Lange)，《圣经知识》(Bibelkunde)，第187–193页。↩︎
兰格（《耶稣生平》〔Leben Jesu〕，I. 258）将路加的主题概括为：“神圣怜悯的启示”；戈代（《注释》〔Com.〕）则说是“上帝爱人之心的显明”（《提多书》3:4）；麦克莱伦（I. 436）说：“罪人靠上帝的恩典，借着信耶稣基督并他钉十字架而得救”；法勒（第17页）说：“他周流四方，行善事，医好凡被魔鬼压制的人”（《使徒行传》10:38，这更适合马可）；范奥斯特泽则说：“正如保罗领主的百姓脱离律法的捆绑，享受福音的自由，路加也将神圣历史从以色列民族性的立场，提升到普遍人性这一更高、更圣洁的境地。”↩︎
σωτήρ^* 一词见于《路加福音》1:47；2:11；《约翰福音》4:42，也常见于《使徒行传》和保罗书信，却不见于《马太福音》或《马可福音》；σωτηρία^* 见于《路加福音》1:69、77；19:9；《约翰福音》4:22，也多次见于《使徒行传》和各书信；σωτήριος^* 见于《路加福音》2:30；3:6；《使徒行传》28:28；《以弗所书》6:17；《提多书》2:11。↩︎
《路加福音》4:25–27；9:52–56；10:33；15:11及后；17:19；18:10；19:5。↩︎
见本卷§80。↩︎
兰格（《圣经知识》〔Bibelkunde〕，第187页）称它为“das Evangelium des Menschensohnes, der Humanität Christi, der Verklärung aller Humanität.”（人子的福音，基督人性的福音，一切人性得以荣化的福音。）↩︎
法勒（第23页）称路加为“第一位基督教圣诗学家”（hymnologist；用“圣诗作者”〔hymnist〕更妥当），并引凯布尔 (Keble) 的诗句：

“你有聆听天使歌声的耳朵，

有吹响福音号角的气息，

教会蒙你教导，直到如今

仍不断唱出崇高的感恩诗歌。”↩︎
这是勒南 (Renan) 的判断，值得完整保存。他在《福音书》(Les Evangiles) 第282和283页说：“L’Evangile de Luc est le plus littéraire des évangiles. Tout y révèle un esprit large et doux, sage, modéré, sobre et raisonnable dans l’irrationnel. Ses exagérations, ses invraisemblances, ses inconséquences tiennent à la nature même de la parabole et en font le charme. Matthieu arrondit les contours un peu secs de Marc. Luc fait bien plus; il écrit, il montre une vraie entente de la composition. Son livre est un beau récit bien suivi, à la fois hébraîque et hellénique, joignant l’émotion du drama à la sérènité de l’idylle. Tout y rit, tout y pleure, tout y chante; partout des larmes et des cantiques; c’est l’hymne du peuple nouveau, L’hosanna des petits et des humbles introduits dans le royaume de Dieu. Un esprit de sainte enfance, de joie, de ferveur, le sentiment évangélique dans son originalité première répandent sur toute la légende une teinte d’une incomparable douceur. On ne fut jamais moins sectaire. Pas un reproche, pas un mot dur pour le vieux peuple exclu; son exclusion ne le punit-elle pas assez ? C’est le plus beau livre qu’il y ait. Le plaisir que l’auteur dut avoir à l’écrire ne sera jamais suffisamment compris.”（“《路加福音》是各福音书中最富文学性的。其中处处显出一种宽广而温柔、明智而适度的精神，即使在非理性之中，也仍节制而合乎情理。它的夸张、不近情理和前后不一致之处，皆源于比喻本身的性质，也构成其魅力。马太使马可稍显干涩的轮廓变得圆润。路加所做的更多；他从事真正的写作，显出对篇章构成的真切领会。他的书是一篇优美而连贯的叙事，兼具希伯来与希腊的特色，将戏剧的激情与田园诗的宁静结合在一起。其中一切都在笑，一切都在哭，一切都在歌唱；到处都有眼泪和颂歌；这是新百姓的赞美诗，是被领入上帝国度的卑微者和谦逊者所唱的和散那。一种圣洁童真的精神、喜乐、热忱，以及保持最初独创性的福音情怀，使整个传说都染上无可比拟的温柔色彩。从未有过如此淡薄的宗派之见。对于那被排除在外的古老民族，没有一句责备，没有一句严厉的话；他们被排除在外，难道还不是足够的惩罚吗？这是世上最美的书。作者写作此书时必然享有的乐趣，人们永远无法充分领会。”）↩︎
哲罗姆极富语言天才，他在《致达马苏书》(Epist. ad Dam.)，20（145）中说：“Lucas qui inter omnes evangelistas Graeci sermonis eruditissimus fuit, quippe et medicus, et qui Evangelium Graecis scripserit.”（路加在所有福音书作者中最精通希腊文，因为他既是医生，又是为希腊人写福音书的。）在另一处，他说路加的“sermo saecularem redolet eloqueiatiam”（文辞带有世俗雄辩的气息）。↩︎
见德里奇 (Delitzsch) 的希伯来文新约中的译文，由英国及海外圣经公会 (Brit. and For. Bible Society) 出版。↩︎
《路加福音》4:38：ἦν συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ^*。συνεχομένη^* 同样是一个医学术语。↩︎
《使徒行传》28:8：πυρετοῖς καὶ δυσεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον^*。其他显示医学知识的例子，见《路加福音》8:46；22:44；《使徒行传》3:7；9:18；10:9、10。普伦普特里博士甚至将保罗的若干措辞，如“健康的教义”（《提摩太前书》1:10；6:3）、“坏疽”或“癌症”（《提摩太后书》2:17）、良心被“烙伤”，更确切说是被“烧灼”（《提摩太前书》4:2），以及为胃的缘故稍微饮酒的劝告（《提摩太前书》5:23），都追溯到“所亲爱的医生”的影响；这位医生曾针对保罗特有的身体软弱为他诊治。这未免有些牵强。都柏林三一学院 (Trinity College, Dublin) 的 W. K. 霍巴特牧师 (Rev. W. K. Hobart) 于1882年出版《圣路加的医学语言》(The Medical Language of St. Luke) 一书，以内部证据证明《路加福音》和《使徒行传》出自同一人之手，而且作者是一位医生。他将这两卷书中四百多个独特的词语和短语，与希波克拉底 (Hippocrates)、阿瑞泰乌斯 (Aretaeus)、狄奥斯科里德斯 (Dioscorides) 和盖伦 (Galen) 著作中相同词语的用法作了比较。↩︎
其中有七个由 πλέω^* 构成的复合词，用以描写船只的运行与操纵，列举如下：πλέω^*，航行，《路加福音》8:23；《使徒行传》21:3；27:6、24。ἀποπλέω^*，从某处开船，《使徒行传》13:4；14:26；20:15；27:1。βραδυπλοέω^*（源自 βραδύς^*，慢），缓慢航行，《使徒行传》27:7。διαπλέω^*，穿过水域航行（不是钦定本 A. V. 所译的“渡过”），《使徒行传》27:5。ἐκπλέω^*，开船离去，《使徒行传》15:39；18:18；20:6。καταπλέω^*，抵达，《路加福音》8:26。ὑποπλέω^*，在背风处航行，《使徒行传》27:4、7。παραπλέω^*，驶过，《使徒行传》20:16。再加上以下航海术语：ἀνάγομαι^*，启航，出海，《使徒行传》27:4。διαπεράω^*，渡海，《使徒行传》21:2。διαφέρομαι^*，被风吹得来回漂荡，《使徒行传》27:27。ἐπικέλλω^*，使船搁浅，《使徒行传》27:41。εὐθυδρομέω^*，直线航行，《使徒行传》16:11；21:1。παραλέγομαι^*（中间语态），沿岸航行，《使徒行传》27:8、13。ὑποτρέχω^*（第二不定过去时，ὑπέδραμον^*），驶至背风处，《使徒行传》27:16。φέρομαι^*（被动语态），被风吹行，《使徒行传》27:15、17。此外还有《使徒行传》27:18的 ἐκβολὴν ἐποιοῦντο^*，以及27:38的 ἐκούφιζον τὸ πλοῖον^*，都是将货物抛入海中以减轻船重的专门用语。↩︎
见詹姆斯·史密斯，i.e.，以及沙弗的《希腊文新约伴读》(Companion to the Gr. Test.)，第57–61页。↩︎
如 χαρά^*，见《路加福音》1:14；2:10；8:13；10:17；15:7、10；24:41、51。↩︎
πνεῦμα^* ἅγιον^*，或单用 πνεῦμα^*，见《路加福音》1:15、34、35、41、67；2:25、26、27；3:16、22；4:1、14、18；12:10、12；在《使徒行传》中出现得更为频繁，这卷书乃是圣灵的福音书。↩︎
见霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，Syn. Evang.，第316–324页；戴维森 (Davidson) 在其 Introd.，I. 437及后页，部分抄用了这些内容（未注明出处）。霍尔茨曼列举了约二百个路加和保罗共用、而新约其他作者或多或少不用的词语或短语。↩︎
如 χάρις, ἔλεος, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, δίκαιος, ἅγιον^*、γνῶσις^*、δύναμις κυρίου^*。↩︎
如 ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδικία, ἀθετεῖν, αἰχμαλωτίζειν, ἀναπέμπειν, ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι, ἀντικείμενος, ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, ἀπελπίζειν, ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ἀτενίζειν, ἐκδιώκειν, ἐπιφαίνειν, εὐγενής, ἠχεῖν, καταργεῖν, κινδυνεύειν, κυριεύειν, πανοπλία, παράδεισος, συγχαίρειν, συνευδοκεῖν, ὑστέρημα, χαρίζεσθαι, ψαλμός^*；还有小品词 ἀλλ’ οὐδέ, εἰ καί, εἰ μήτι, τίς οὖν^*。κύριος^* 一词用来代称耶稣，在《路加福音》中出现十四次，在各书信中也常见，但在其他对观福音书中仅见一处（《马可福音》的末尾数节，16:19、20）。↩︎
以下是若干显著的平行例证（引自霍尔茨曼，第322页）：

路加

保罗

6:48：ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν^*

《哥林多前书》3:10：ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον ἔθηκα^*

8:15：καρποφοροῦσιν ὑπομονῇ^*。

《歌罗西书》1:10、11：καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονήν^*。

9:56：οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι^*。

《哥林多后书》10:8：Ἔδωκεν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσιν^*。13:10。

10:8：ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν^*。

《哥林多前书》10:27：πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε^*。

10:20：τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγράφη ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς^*

《腓立比书》4:3：ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν Βίβλῳ ζωῆς^*。

10:21：ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις^*

《哥林多前书》1:19：ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω^*。27：τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς ἵνα καταισχύνῃ τοὺς σοφούς^*。

11:41：πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν^*

《提多书》1:15：πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς^*。

11:49；ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσι καὶ ἐκδιώξουσιν^*

《帖撒罗尼迦前书》2:15：τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων^*。

12:35：ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι^*。

《以弗所书》6:14：στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τῶν ὀσφῦν ὑμῶν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ^*。

18:1：δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐκκακεῖν^*。

《帖撒罗尼迦后书》1:11：εἰς^* ὅ^* καὶ προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε^*。《歌罗西书》4:12：πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς^*。参《帖撒罗尼迦前书》5:1、7；《罗马书》1:10。

20:16：μὴ γένοιτο^*。

《罗马书》9:14；11:11；《加拉太书》3:21。

20:38：πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν^*。

《罗马书》14:7、8：ἐάν τε γὰρ ζῶμεν, τῷ κυρίῳ ζῶμεν^*。参《哥林多后书》5:15。

21:24：καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν ἄχρι πληρωθῶσι καιροὶ ἐθνῶν^*。

《罗马书》11:25：ὅτι πώρωσις τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρις οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν^*↩︎
见查特里斯 (Charteris) 所编基尔希霍费尔 (Kirchhofer) 一书，前引处，第154及后页所载的古代见证。↩︎
策勒 (Zeller)、戴维森 (Davidson，I. 444) 以及该学派的其他人，都坦然承认这一点。↩︎
甚至《超自然宗教》(Supernatural Religion) 的作者，也终于在1875年不得不向桑迪博士 (Dr. Sanday) 的论据让步；其实，早在多年前，希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1850年) 和福尔克马尔 (Volkmar，1852年) 已在德国解决了这个问题。戴维森也承认（Introd.，新版，I. 446）：“毫无疑问，马吉安 (Marcion) 拥有《路加福音》，并任意处理其文本，使之适合自己的观念。他生活在游斯丁 (Justin) 之前，约在公元140年；我们从其著作中得知这卷福音书存在的作者，以他为最早。”↩︎
戴维森在其新版中（I. 467）仍坚持这一已被推翻的图宾根 (Tübingen) 观点：“路加希望把犹太教［原文如此！］与保罗主义 (Paulinism) 汇入包容广泛的基督教领域，使前者融入后者。为贯彻这一目的，他描写了耶稣与其反对者之间不可调和的对立。”仿佛马太、马可和约翰没有做完全相同的事似的。他甚至重述鲍尔 (Baur) 那早已被驳倒的荒谬臆说，声称路加“显然有意将十二使徒贬低到七十人之下”（第469页）；不仅戈代 (Godet)，甚至策勒、霍尔茨曼和凯姆 (Keim)，至少也已部分驳斥了这一说法。鲍尔声称路加敌视彼得，其主要证据是路加省略了那段著名的话：“你是磐石。”然而，马可也同样省略了这句话；反过来说，唯独路加记下了基督在《路加福音》22:32对彼得说的话，而罗马天主教徒正以此作为教皇无谬说的根据。↩︎
批评学者对成书年代的意见分歧很大：（1）主张写于公元70年以前的，有所有较早的神学家，以及兰格 (Lange)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、盖里克 (Guericke)、范奥斯特泽 (van Oosterzee)、戈代 (Godet，60–67年)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch，58–60年)、阿尔福德 (Alford，58年)、里德尔 (Riddle，60年)。（2）主张写于70至90年之间的，有德韦特 (De Wette)、布莱克 (Bleek)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、居德尔 (Güder)、迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯 (Weiss，70–80年)、凯姆 (Keim)、阿博特 (Abbott，80–90年)。（3）主张写于公元100年或更晚的，有希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和福尔克马尔 (Volkmar，100年)、策勒 (Zeller) 和戴维森 (Davidson，100–110年)。鲍尔所定的公元140年，完全是无稽之谈；殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 和马吉安的明确见证，已使这一年代不可能成立。因此，他虽觉得不得不部分撤回自己先前关于马吉安福音书较早的观点，却仍不肯 in toto（全盘）撤回（Kirchengesch. I. 75、78）。↩︎
伦敦的阿博特博士 (Dr. Abbott)（载《大英百科全书》Enc. Brit.，第九版，1879年，X. 813）为《路加福音》的较晚成书年代，找出了不下十条理由，其中八条仅出自序言：“（1）此前已有许多‘尝试’，要将那些‘确实相信’的事编成连贯的叙述，而这些尝试显然未获成功；（2）提及亲眼见证者和传道者的‘传承’时，所用的是过去时，而非现在时（παρέδοσαν^*，《路加福音》1:2）；（3）这卷福音书题献给一位有地位的人（无论是虚构的还是真实的），并假定他已在基督教真理上受过‘教理教导’；（4）力求文辞之美，并改进共同传统的 ‘usus ecclesiasticus’（教会惯用语）；（5）编成了近似基督教圣诗集雏形的内容；（6）家谱的发展，以及道成肉身叙事中更为崇高的格调；（7）插入许多称我们的主为 ὁ κύριος^* 的段落，这并非用于当面称呼，而是用于叙述；（8）更鲜明地区分耶路撒冷的陷落与末后的降临；（9）详细预言耶路撒冷的陷落，暗示其中包含对预言应验的回忆；（10）耶稣复活后显现的叙述有了极大的发展。从这一切证据可以推断，《路加福音》最早也要到公元80年左右才写成。如果还能证明路加使用过某部次经（例如《犹滴传》），又能证明该书写于某一年代之后（勒南 (Renan) 提议以公元80年为《犹滴传》的成书年代），那么，或许就必须把《路加福音》的年代定得晚得多；但迄今尚无这样的证明。”然而，这些论据大多被《路加福音》1:2中的 ἡμῖν^* 所排除；这个词把作者也包括在那些从基督生平的亲眼见证者那里听到福音事迹的人之中。《使徒行传》也清楚表明，其作者就是第三卷福音书的作者，是保罗的亲密同伴，因此属于第一代门徒；这一代包括从五旬节直到耶路撒冷被毁期间，所有经使徒带领归信的人。↩︎
凯姆 (Keim，I. 70) 如此雄辩地夸大这一细微差别：“这位作者［路加］与马太不同；圣城灾难的真实景象，以其全部可怖的规模呈现在他心灵面前：敌人旷日持久而又精心部署的围攻，军队，坚固的营垒，封锁的包围圈，千般困苦，刀剑的血腥杀戮，人民被掳，圣殿与城邑夷为平地——这一切都被置于一个严肃的观点之下，即这是上帝因其使者遭受 dung^* 而施行的刑罚审判。不仅如此，第一位福音书作者的视野止于这场灾难，而在这位新的历史作者眼前，灾难之后还延伸着一个新的、长短无法确定的漫长时期：耶路撒冷沦为废墟，处于外邦人的铁蹄和外邦世界的时代之下，他自己也正是在这一时期写作。在这样的情形下，尽管他竭力保留主要特征，甚至保留在“这世代”之内再临的说法，耶稣那篇论未来的大讲论仍遭到了种种改动。”霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann，Syn. Evang.，第406及下页)，甚至居德尔 (Güder，载赫尔佐格 Herzog，IX. 19) 和魏斯 (Weiss，载迈耶 Meyer，第六版，第243页)，也以较为平实的措辞提出同一论据；不过，他们假定路加仅比马太晚几年写作。↩︎
戈代 (Godet，第543页) 说：“从心理上说，路加不可能任意改动那位他所信仰、并认作上帝之子的主所说的话。”↩︎
哲罗姆 (Jerome)：亚该亚 (Achaia) 和彼奥提亚 (Boeotia)；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1858年)：亚该亚或马其顿 (Macedonia)；戈代 (Godet，初版)：哥林多 (Corinth)，该犹 (Gaius) 家中（《罗马书》16:23）；但第二版的说法较不确定：亚该亚。↩︎
《别西大译本》(Peshito) 的标题是：“传福音者路加的福音书，他在大亚历山大城 (Alexandria the Great) 用希腊文将其发表并传讲。”↩︎
克斯特林 (Köstlin) 和奥弗贝克 (Overbeck)，以及1875年的希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，Einleit.，第612页)。↩︎
米夏埃利斯 (Michaelis)、屈内尔 (Kuinöl)、肖特 (Schott)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch) 等人。↩︎
胡格 (Hug)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、策勒 (Zeller)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、凯姆 (Keim)、戴维森 (Davidson)。↩︎
魏斯 (Weiss)，载迈耶 (Meyer) 第六版（第244页）：“这卷福音书写于何处，完全不得而知。”↩︎
《约翰福音》14:26；16:18。参《马太福音》10:19、20；《路加福音》12:12；《使徒行传》4:8。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，III，第1章，§ 2。↩︎
同上，III. 11, 1。↩︎
“Ut recognoscentibus omnibus, Joannes suo nomine cuncta describeret.”意即：“让众人一同审阅，由约翰以自己的名义将一切记下。”↩︎
“Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem profitetur.”意即：“因为他如此表明，自己不仅亲眼看见、亲耳听见，而且按次序记下了主的一切奇事。”见特里格尔斯 (Tregelles) 所刊的拉丁文本，亦载于查特里斯 (Charteris)，前引书，第3页；另见韦斯科特 (Westcott) 的译文，《正典史》(History of the Canon)，第187页。↩︎
《马太福音》10:2；《路加福音》6:14；《马可福音》3:16；13:3；《约翰福音》1:41；12:22；《使徒行传》1:13。↩︎
韦斯科特 (Westcott) 和希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 均曾引用。我在此补上米涅 (Migne)，Patrol.，V. 333中的原文：“Cum enim essent Valentinus et Cerinthus, et Ebion, et caeteri scholae satanae, diffusi per orbem, convenerunt ad illum de finitimis provinciis omnes episcopi, et compulerunt eum, ut et ipse testimonium coscriberet.”意即：“因为瓦伦廷 (Valentinus)、克林妥 (Cerinthus)、伊便 (Ebion) 以及撒但学派的其他人遍布世界，邻近各省的众主教便都聚集到他那里，敦促他也亲自写下见证。”↩︎
《马太福音注释》(Com in Matt.) 序言。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，III. 11, 1。↩︎
巴西利德 (Basilides) 的话，见希坡律陀 (Hippolytus)，《驳诸异端》(Ref. Haer.)，VII. 22。↩︎
见优西比乌 (Eusebius)，《教会史》(H. E.)，VI. 14（引自《纲要》Hypotyposes）：τὸν Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων^*［即熟识的朋友，或杰出、著名的人物］，πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον^*。意即：约翰最后看出，各福音书已经阐明了外在的事，便在友人敦促下，受圣灵感动，写成一卷属灵的福音书。俄利根 (Origen) 也持类似的观点，即在福音书作者中，唯独约翰清楚教导基督的神性。见《约翰福音注释》(in Joan.)，第1卷第6节（Opp.，IV. 6）。↩︎
《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 24。哲罗姆重述此说，并将其与反异端的目的联系起来，见《名人传》(De vir. illustr.)，第9章；参《马太福音注释·序言》(Com. in Matt. Proaem.)。摩普绥提亚的狄奥多尔 (Theodore of Mopsuestia) 认为，约翰主要想以论述基督神性的讲论，补充对观福音书。见弗里切 (Fritzsche) 所编其《新约注释》残篇，苏黎世 (Turici)，第19及下页（转引自希尔根费尔德，Einleitung，第696页）。↩︎
戈代 (Godet) 表达了同样的观点（I. 862）：“因此，无论是像优西比乌所想的那样，从历史的角度补充此前的记述，还是像亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 所说的那样，从更属灵的方面予以补充，这一意图都有充分的事实根据；我们确认它是一个次要目的，更确切地说，是服务于主要目的的手段。”↩︎
《著作集》(Opera)，IV. 6：τολμητέον τοίνυν εἰπεῖν ἀπαρχὴν μὲν πασῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὰ εὐαγγέλια, τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων ἀπαρχὴν τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην^*。意即：因此，我们可以大胆地说，福音书是全部圣经的初熟果子，而《约翰福音》又是诸福音书的初熟果子。↩︎
德韦特 (DeWette) 说，约翰所记基督的讲论闪耀着超越尘世的光辉（sie strahlen in mehr als irdischem Brillantfeuer，见《释经手册》Exeg. Handbuch，I.3，第7页）。霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 说：“第四福音书的基本思想，远远超出了第二世纪教会的视野，甚至超出了直至今日整个基督教会的视野。”（见申克尔 (Schenkel) 编《圣经辞典》Bibel. Lexik.，II. 234。）鲍尔 (Baur) 和凯姆 (Keim)（I. 133）将这卷福音书视为宗教哲学，给予最高赞誉，却否认其历史价值。↩︎
勒南 (Renan) 和约翰·斯图亚特·密尔 (John Stuart Mill) 都曾坦承，他们对这些讲论深感厌恶。勒南对《约翰福音》最后的评断（见 L’église chrét.，1879年，第51页）如下：“人们对它赞赏过度了。它有热情，有时也有某种崇高，但又有一种浮夸、虚假、晦涩的东西。它完全缺少天真质朴。作者不是在叙事，而是在论证。没有什么比他冗长的神迹叙述，以及那些围绕误解展开、让耶稣的对手扮演白痴角色的争辩，更使人疲倦的了。比起这种辞藻繁多的激情，我们何等喜爱《登山宝训》那温柔而仍然十足希伯来式的文风，以及早期福音书作者那使人倾倒的清澈叙事！这些作者无须不断重申自己所讲的是真的。他们的真诚尚未意识到反对意见，因而没有那种急切渴求反复作证的心态；这种心态表明，不信与怀疑已经开始出现了。从这位新叙述者略显激动的语气看来，他似乎害怕不被相信，便试图用充满夸张的断言，乘读者不备而攫取其宗教信任。”约翰·斯图亚特·密尔（《宗教三论》Three Essays on Religion，第253页）不敬地把约翰所记的讲论称作“拙劣的东西”，说它们是从斐罗 (Philo) 和亚历山大的柏拉图主义者那里搬来的，并设想许多东方的诺斯替派 (Gnostics) 人物都能炮制出这样一部书。但他们为什么没有这样做呢？↩︎
尽管有这些经文，戴维森博士 (Dr. Davidson) 仍断言（II. 278）：“福音书作者把上帝的独生子与历史上的耶稣结合起来，暗示他没有完整的人性。他的位格在本质上由逻各斯 (Logos) 构成，肉身只是一种暂时的东西。身体、魂和灵并不属于耶稣基督；他是暂时成为肉身的逻各斯，不久便回到原先与父合一的状态。”↩︎
兰格 (Lange)、韦斯科特 (Westcott)、米利根 (Milligan) 和莫尔顿 (Moulton) 都曾详论这一特征。↩︎
哈泽 (Hase) 在《耶稣史》(Geschichte Jesu，第61页) 中，对这一类比作了几句精辟的评论：“色诺芬 (Xenophon) 笔下的苏格拉底 (Sokrates)，与柏拉图 (Plato) 笔下的不同；两人各自把握了与自己最亲近、最喜爱的一面。只有从两人的描绘中，我们才认识真正的苏格拉底。色诺芬那生动朴实的叙述，充分带有其所述之事真实可信的印记。然而，这位徘徊于狭小的伦理和政治观念圈子里的苏格拉底，并不是完整的苏格拉底，不是那位希腊最有智慧、曾在本民族的心灵中引起伟大革命的人。相比之下，柏拉图笔下的苏格拉底，更配作希腊哲学新时期的开创者，也更像是把智慧从天上带到地上的那一位——阿提卡的逻各斯 (der attische Logos)。”↩︎
米利根 (Milligan) 和莫尔顿 (Moulton) 所著优秀的《约翰福音注释》(Commentary on John)，导论，第xxxiii页。↩︎
勒南说：“如果耶稣说话果真如马太所记，他就不可能像约翰所记的那样说话。”↩︎
《约翰福音》1:26、43；2:19；4:44；6:20、35、37；12:13、25、27；18:16、20:20:19、23。见戈代 (Godet)，I. 197及下页，以及韦斯科特 (Westcott)，第lxxxii及下页所列的清单。主要的平行经文如下：

《约翰福音》2:19：耶稣回答说，你们拆毁这殿，我三日内要再建立起来。

《马太福音》26:61：这个人曾说，我能拆毁上帝的殿，三日内又建造起来。参《马可福音》14:58；15:29。

3:18：信他的人，不被定罪；不信的人，罪已经定了。

《马可福音》16:16：信而受洗的，必然得救；不信的，必被定罪。

4:44：因为耶稣自己作过见证说，先知在本地是没有人尊敬的。

《马太福音》15:57：耶稣对他们说，大凡先知，除了本地本家之外，没有不被人尊敬的。参《马可福音》6:4；《路加福音》4:24。

5:8：耶稣对他说，起来，拿你的褥子走吧。

《马太福音》9:6：起来，拿你的褥子回家去吧。参《马可福音》2:9；《路加福音》5:24。

6:20：是我，不要怕。

《马太福音》14:27：是我，不要怕。参《马可福音》6:50。

6:35：到我这里来的，必定不饿；信我的，永远不渴。

《马太福音》5:6；《路加福音》6:21：饥渴慕义的人有福了，因为他们必得饱足。

6:37：凡父所赐给我的人，必到我这里来；到我这里来的，我总不丢弃他。

《马太福音》11:28、29：凡劳苦担重担的人，可以到我这里来，……你们心里就必得享安息。

6:46：这不是说有人看见过父，惟独从上帝来的，他看见过父。参1:18：从来没有人看见上帝，只有在父怀里的独生子将他表明出来。

《马太福音》11:27：除了父，没有人知道子；除了子和子所愿意指示的，没有人知道父。

12:8：因为常有穷人和你们同在，只是你们不常有我。

《马太福音》26:11：因为常有穷人和你们同在，只是你们不常有我。参《马可福音》14:7。

12:25：爱惜自己生命的，就失丧生命；在这世上恨恶自己生命的，就要保守生命到永生。

《马太福音》10:39：得着生命的，将要失丧生命；为我失丧生命的，将要得着生命。参16:25；《马可福音》8:35；《路加福音》9:24；17:83。

12:27：我现在心里忧愁，我说什么才好呢？父啊，救我脱离这时候；但我原是为这时候来的。

《马太福音》26:38：便对他们说，我心里甚是忧伤，几乎要死。参《马可福音》14:84。

13:3：耶稣知道父已将万有交在他手里……

《马太福音》11:27：一切所有的，都是我父交付我的。

13:16：我实实在在地告诉你们，仆人不能大于主人。

《马太福音》10:24：学生不能高过先生，仆人不能高过主人。参《路加福音》6:40。

13:20：有人接待我所差遣的，就是接待我；接待我，就是接待那差遣我的。

《马太福音》10:40：人接待你们，就是接待我；接待我，就是接待那差遣我的。

14:18：我不撇下你们为孤儿，我必到你们这里来。参14:23：我们要……与他同住。

《马太福音》28:20：我就常与你们同在，直到世界的末了。

15:21：但他们因我的名，要向你们行这一切的事。

《马太福音》10:22：并且你们要为我的名，被众人恨恶。

17:2：正如你曾赐给他权柄，管理凡有血气的。

《马太福音》28:18：天上地下所有的权柄，都赐给我了。

20:23：你们赦免谁的罪，谁的罪就赦免了。

《马太福音》18:18：凡你们在地上所释放的，在天上也要释放。↩︎
关于约翰文体的更多细节，见拙著《希腊文新约研究指南》(Companion to the Study of the Greek Test.)，第66–75页，其中列举了勒南 (Renan)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、卢塔特 (Luthardt)、凯姆 (Keim)、戈代 (Godet)、韦斯科特 (Westcott)、哈泽 (Hase) 和魏斯 (Weiss) 对这一问题的看法。↩︎
见第405页及后各页的文献介绍。在那里所提及的那些有力维护《约翰福音》真确性的论著之外，现在还须加上魏斯博士 (Dr. Weiss) 的《耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu，第I卷，1882年，第84–124页) 中那篇精湛的论述；此书我刚刚收到。↩︎
勒南 (Renan) 最近（1879年）又部分重申了这一观点。见下文。↩︎
他的引文被认为是最早具名引用的；但爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 于177至192年间写作，所代表的传统更早。他提出了自己认为令人满意的证明：福音书必须恰好有四卷，以对应以西结异象中的四个基路伯。见《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，III. 1, 1；11, 8；V. 36, 2。↩︎
叙利亚的以法莲 (Ephraem Syrus) 所著《四福音合参注释》（375年），最近已被发现，并于1876年在威尼斯 (Venice) 根据亚美尼亚文译本刊行。参察恩 (Zahn)，《他提安的四福音合参》(Tatian’s Diatessaron)，埃尔朗根 (Erlangen)，1881年；以及哈纳克 (Harnack)，《第二世纪希腊护教士著作的传承》(Die Ueberlieferung der griechisch en Apologeten des zweiten Jahrh.)，莱比锡 (Leipzig)，1882年，第213页及后。↩︎
殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 是否使用过《约翰福音》，曾受到鲍尔 (Baur) 和他大多数追随者的怀疑，却为希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和凯姆 (Keim) 所承认。后来，《超自然宗教》(Supernatural Religion) 的匿名作者，以及埃德温·A. 阿博特 (Edwin A. Abbott)（见《不列颠百科全书》Enc. Brit.，第X卷，第821页，“福音书”Gospels 条），又加以否认；英国的桑迪 (Sanday) 和美国的以斯拉·阿博特 (Ezra Abbot) 则再次作出了确凿的证明。↩︎
这段引文不是逐字引述，而是凭记忆引用，如同他的大多数引文一样：

游斯丁 (Justin)，《护教辞》(Apol.)，I. 61：“因为基督也说过，你们若不重生［ἀναγεννηθῆτε^*，参《彼得前书》3:23］，就断不能进［εἰσέλθητε^*，但参《约翰福音》8:5和7中的同一个词］天国［马太所用的措辞］。已经出生的人，不可能再进入生他们之人的腹中，这是人人都明白的。”

《约翰福音》3:3、4：“耶稣回答他［尼哥底母］说，我实实在在地告诉你，人若不重新生［或从上头生，γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν^*］，就不能见［ἰδεῖν^*；3:5作进］上帝的国。尼哥底母说，人已经老了，如何能重生呢？岂能再进母腹生出来吗？”

图宾根 (Tübingen) 的批判学者大大利用了引文中那些细微的差异（以 ἀναγεννηθῆτε^* 代替 γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν^*，以 εἰσελθεῖν^* 代替 ἰδεῖν^*，又以 βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν^* 代替 βας. τοῦ θεοῦ^*），来否认两者之间的联系；或者，既然这是不可能的，便转而证明约翰依赖游斯丁！然而，阿博特博士 (Dr. Abbot) 是一位极其精确而审慎的学者，而且身为独一神论者 (Unitarian)，也不能指责他有正统信仰的偏见。他不仅从教父著作中，甚至还从近代神学家的著作中，提出许多自由引用同一段经文的类似例证；其中包括杰里米·泰勒 (Jeremy Taylor) 对这段经文不少于九次的引用，而只有两次相同。我认为，对任何讲理的人来说，他都已确凿证明了自己的论点。见他那部极有价值的专论《第四福音书的作者》(The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel)，第28页及后，以及第91页及后。另参魏斯 (Weiss)，《耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu)，I. 83；他在殉道者游斯丁那里，不仅发现“对第四福音书尼哥底母故事无可置疑的暗指”，还发现了其他零星的追忆。↩︎
可将下列措辞互相比较：“我渴望上帝的粮，就是耶稣基督的肉……我渴望以他的血为饮料，这血就是不朽的爱”（《致罗马人书》Ad Rom.，第7章），与《约翰福音》6:47及后；“活水”（《致罗马人书》Ad Rom.，第7章），与《约翰福音》4:10、11；“他自己就是父的门”（《致非拉铁非人书》Ad Philad.，第9章），与《约翰福音》10:9；［圣灵］“知道从哪里来，往哪里去”（《致非拉铁非人书》Ad Philad.，第7章），与《约翰福音》3:8。我所引用的是察恩 (Zahn) 的文本。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 发表于1875年2月《当代评论》(Contemp. Rev.) 的精辟文章，以及他的《圣伊格那丢》(S. Ignatius)，1885年。↩︎
坡旅甲 (Polyc.)，《致腓立比人书》(Ad Phil.)，第7章：“凡不承认耶稣基督已在肉身中降临的，就是敌基督；凡不承认十字架奥秘的，就是出于魔鬼。”参《约翰一书》4:3。关于坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的见证，见莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 发表于1875年5月《当代评论》(Contemp. Rev.) 的文章。韦斯科特 (Westcott)，第xxx页，说：“对其中一卷的见证”（福音书或第一封书信），“必然也可推论为对另一卷的见证。”↩︎
据优西比乌 (Eusebius)，III. 39。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 发表于1875年8月和10月《当代评论》(Contemp. Rev.) 的文章。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius) 在《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 39中，以如下记述结束他对帕皮亚 (Papias) 的介绍：“他还［在其《主言释义》(Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles) 中］记载了另一个故事，讲到一个妇人因许多罪在主面前受到恶意控告；这故事载于《希伯来人福音书》。”↩︎
有一个年代太晚（九世纪）、不足以具有任何考据分量的传说，甚至把帕皮亚 (Papias) 说成约翰撰写福音书时的笔录者。一部梵蒂冈抄本（原属瑞典女王克里斯蒂娜）有如下旁注：“Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhuc in corpore constituto; sicut Papiss, nomine Hieropolitanus discipulus Johannis carus, in exotericis [exegeticis], id est in extremis, quinque libris retulit［无疑是指五卷《主言释义》Λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις^*］。Descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte.”（约翰尚在世时，就已将《约翰福音》公开并交给众教会；正如希拉波立人帕皮亚，即约翰所爱的门徒，在其五卷公开著作［释经著作］的末尾所记。他又在约翰口授之下，准确地笔录了这部福音书。）阿贝勒 (Aberle) 教授（罗马天主教徒）在1864年《图宾根季刊》(Tübing. Quartalschrift) 第1期中，欢呼这是一项帕皮亚为约翰所作的直接见证；但希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 在他的《杂志》(Zeitschrift)，1865年，第77页及后，反驳阿贝勒时，以及哈泽 (Hase)，前引书，第35页，都否定了它。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 若在帕皮亚的著作中发现了这条记载，很可能会在引述他关于《马太福音》和《马可福音》的见证时一并提及。不过，参见韦斯科特 (Westcott)，《正典》(Canon)，第5版，第77页，注1。↩︎
见许勒 (Schürer) 的拉丁文论文《论逾越节争论》等 (De controversiis paschalibus, etc.)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1869年；以及载于1970年《历史神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.)，第182–284页的德译本。↩︎
见该书最后一部分，由德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 发现并首次刊布（XIX. 22）。这一发现促使希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 撤回了他先前对前面各卷中那些引文的否认；见《新约导论》(Einleit. in d. N. T.)，第43页及下页，注。↩︎
见希坡吕托 (Hippolytus) 的《驳斥异端》(Philosophumena)，VII. 22、27；霍夫斯泰德·德·格鲁特 (Hofstede de Groot)，《巴西里德》(Basilides)，译自荷兰文，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1868年；霍特 (Hort)，《巴西里德》(Basilides)，载史密斯与韦斯 (Smith and Wace)，I. 271；阿博特 (Abbot)，前引书，第85页及后。↩︎
前引书 (L. c.)，第89页。↩︎
见凯姆 (Keim)，《塞尔苏斯的〈真言〉》(Celsus’ Wahres Wort)，1873年，第223–230页；此外还有拉德纳 (Lardner)、诺顿 (Norton)、托卢克 (Tholuck) 较早的研究，以及阿博特 (Abbot) 博士最近的研究，前引书，第58页及下页。↩︎
《约翰福音》1:23；2:17；6:31、45；7:38；10:34；12:14、38、40；13:18；15:25；19:21、36、37。↩︎
见韦斯科特 (Westcott) 对这些经文所作的细致分析，《导论》(Intr.)，第xiii页及后。↩︎
“Johannes als der Erzählende, in seinem Selbstbewusstsein, bedarf für den anderen Johannes des Beinamens nicht, ihm liegt die Verwechslung ganz fern.”（约翰作为叙述者，清楚知道自己是谁，因而不必为另一位约翰加上别称；他根本不会想到会有混淆。）哈泽 (Hase)，《耶稣传》(Geschichte Jesu)，第48页。这位可敬的耶拿 (Jena) 历史学家，原先相信第四福音书完全出自约翰之手；不幸的是，这一信念在他与图宾根巨人的交锋中动摇了。但他仍宣称，鲍尔 (Baur) 的反对理由终究不足以定论，并试图以一种站不住脚的折衷说摆脱两难：约翰死后数年，一位有才干的门徒把他的口头教导记录下来，并赋予几分神秘色彩。“Die Botschaft hört er wohl, allein ihm fehlt der Glaube.”（信息他固然听见了，只是他缺少信心。）↩︎
《约翰福音》1:29、35、39、43；2:1；4:6、40、43、52；6:22；7:14、37；11:6、17、39；12:1、12；13:30；18:28；19:31；20:1、19、26；21:4。↩︎
《约翰福音》1:35；2:6；4:18；6:9、10、19；19:23、39；21:8、11。↩︎
《约翰福音》2:17、22；4:27；6:60；12:16；13:22、28；20:9；21:12。↩︎
《约翰福音》2:24、25；4:1–3；5:6；6:6、15；7:1；11:33、38；13:1、3、11、21；16:19；18:4；19:28。↩︎
“此后，基督徒朝圣者曾多少次就在救主歇息的地方诵读这第四章，心中油然而生一种无法抗拒的印象：字字真实，切合当时当地，却又适用于一切时代和地方。雅各井如今已成废墟，不再使用；但救主当年在那里为一个贫苦、有罪而又悔改的妇人初次开启的活水泉源，仍像从前一样深邃清新，直到时间的尽头，都必解灵魂的干渴。”这是我1871年为兰格 (Lange)《约翰福音注释》(Com. on John) 英文版所写的话，见第151页。六年以后，我与一群朋友坐在雅各井旁，以从未有过的体会诵读《约翰福音》第4章，才充分体验到先前所期待的一切。巴勒斯坦 (Palestine)，即使处在“衰败中那令人怜惜的美”之中，也实在是一部“第五福音书”；它对四福音书所投射的亮光，胜过许多满载学问和批判性猜测的注释书。↩︎
《约翰福音》1:14：ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν^*（我们也见过他的荣光）。θεάομαι^* 比 ὁράω^* 的含义更丰富，意指怀着赞叹和喜悦观看或凝视。复数形式增强了这一陈述的力量，如21:24；《约翰一书》1:1；《彼得后书》1:16。↩︎
见第419页及下页，以及我的《希腊文新约指南》(Companion to the Greek Testament)，第76页及后。↩︎
在他以前，英国国教会前教牧爱德华·埃文森 (Edward Evanson) 已在《通常公认的四位福音作者之间的不协调》(The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists)，1792年，攻击约翰以及除路加以外的所有福音书。他受到独一神论者普里斯特利 (Priestley) 博士的反驳；后者得出结论说，《约翰福音》“所具有的、表明其出自目击者之手的内在而明确的标志，比任何其他著作，无论神圣的或世俗的，都更为丰富”。见他的《致一位青年的书信》(Letters to a Young Man)（《著作集》Works，第XX卷，第430页）。↩︎
《论约翰福音的构成与特征》(Ueber die Composition und den Charakter des joh. Evangeliums)，一篇发表于策勒 (Zeller) 主编的《神学年鉴》(Theol. Jahrücher) 的论文，图宾根 (Tübingen)，1844年；又收入他的《正典福音书批判研究》(Krit. Untersuchungen über die kanon. Evang.)，图宾根 (Tüb.)，1847年，以及《教会史》(Kirchengesch.)，1853年（第3版，第I卷，第146页及后、166页及后）。戈代 (Godet)（I. 17）称鲍尔 (Baur) 的第一篇论文为“神学学术所曾产生的最富才智、最为辉煌的作品之一”，这一评价是公允的。↩︎
来自维蒂兴 (Wittichen) 和朔尔滕 (Scholten)。↩︎
尤其来自希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)。约翰曾居于以弗所 (Ephesus) 的传承，是古代教会最有力、最始终如一的传承之一，可以追溯至坡利克拉底 (Polycrates)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 和帕皮亚 (Papias)；他们正是约翰的门徒和再传门徒，对于这样一个简单的事实，绝不可能弄错。↩︎
魏斯 (Weiss) 博士（《耶稣生平》Leben Jesu，I. 106）承认鲍尔 (Baur) 博士的功绩，认为他对第四福音书独特性质的洞察更深，对增进人们理解它所作的贡献，也超过了旧式机械的释经；后者不理解其间的差异，只寻求 dicta probantia（证明性经句）。但他又公允地补充说，鲍尔的批判“染上了通体苍白的病色”，即现代哲学构造的病色（von der Blässe moderner philosophischer Construction angekränkelt）。我们也愿意对凯姆 (Keim) 博士作出同样的评价；他性情高傲，却又高尚而认真，因精心撰写《拿撒勒的耶稣史》而积劳成疾，以至去世。英语中反对第四福音书出自约翰之手的论述，以《不列颠百科全书》(Encycl. Brit.)，第9版，第X卷，第818–843页（1879年）中的“福音书”一文，最为渊博、格调高雅，且才力卓绝；作者是伦敦城学校校长埃德温·A. 阿博特 (Edwin A. Abbott) 博士。↩︎
我无意贬低众多可敬的真理捍卫者的功绩，却斗胆将桂冠授予纳沙泰尔 (Neuchâtel) 的戈代 (Godet) 博士，因他在其《约翰福音注释》全面修订的第三版导论卷中所作的论述（《历史与批判导论》Introduction historique et critique，巴黎，1881年，376页）；也授予柏林的魏斯 (Weiss) 博士，因其极出色的《耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu)，柏林，1882年，第I卷，第84–198页。在英国，这场争战主要由莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教、韦斯科特 (Westcott) 法政牧师、米利根 (Milligan) 教授和桑迪 (Sanday) 博士承担。在美国，以斯拉·阿博特 (Ezra Abbot) 博士（1880年）在准确而有力地陈述第四福音书出自约翰之手的历史论据方面，与他们任何一位都不相上下。他的论文已重印于其《批判论文集》(Critical Essays)，波士顿，1888年（第9–107页）。↩︎
勒南 (Renan) 说（《基督教会》L’Église chrét.，第54页）：“Tout est possible à cesépoques ténébreuses; et, si l’Église, en vénérant le quatrième Évangile comme l’oeuvre de Jean, est dupe de celui qu’elle regarde comme un de ses plus dangereux ennemis, cela n’est pas en somme plus étrange que tant d’autres malentendus qui composent la trame de l’histoire religieuse de l’humanité. Ce qu’il y a de sûr, c’est que l’auteur est à la fois le père et l’adversaire du gnosticisme, l’ennemi de ceux qui laissaient s’evaporer dans un docétisme nuageux l’humanité réelle de Jésus et le complice de ceus qui le reléguaient dans l’abstraction divine.”（在那些黑暗的时代，一切皆有可能；教会若尊崇第四福音书为约翰的作品，却受了一个被她视为最危险的敌人之一的人的欺骗，这终究并不比构成人类宗教史经纬的许多其他误解更为奇怪。可以确定的是，作者既是诺斯替主义之父，又是它的敌手；他既反对那些使耶稣真实的人性消散于朦胧的幻影说之中的人，又是那些把耶稣置于抽象神性之中的人的同谋。）不过，他认为更可能的是（第47页），约翰在以弗所的两位门徒（长老约翰和亚里斯提翁）在他死后二三十年写成了这部福音书。↩︎
见他的简编本《耶稣传》(Geschichte Jesu) 最后一版。↩︎
正如魏斯 (Weiss)（I. 109）所作的精妙表述：“Ueberall im Einzelnen wie in der Gesammtgestaltung des Lebens Jesu stossen wir auf das harte Gestein geschichtlicher Erinnerung, welches dem kritischen Auflösungsprozess, der es in ideelle Bildungen verwandeln will, unüberwindlichen Widerstand leistet.”（无论在个别细节上，还是在耶稣生平的整体构造上，我们处处都遇到历史记忆的坚硬岩石；面对那企图将它化为观念构造的批判性消解过程，它始终作出不可克服的抵抗。）↩︎
“Als die Dichtung eines halbgnostischen Philosophen aus dem zweiten Jahrhundert ist es［第四福音书］ein trügerisches Irrlicht, ja in Wahrheit eine grosse Lüge.”（倘若它是二世纪一位半诺斯替主义哲学家的虚构之作，那么它就是一道骗人的鬼火，实在就是一个弥天大谎。）魏斯 (Weiss)，I. 124。勒南 (Renan) 也承认这种非此即彼的结论，只是措辞较温和：“Il y a là un petit artifice littéraire, du genre de ceux qu’affectionne Platon.”（这里有一点文学上的巧计，与柏拉图所喜爱的那类手法相似。）前引书，第52页。↩︎
施瓦本 (Swabia) 诗人古斯塔夫·施瓦布 (Gustav Schwab) 的几行诗，鲜明地刻画了这种荒谬。施特劳斯 (Strauss) 的《耶稣传》(Leben Jesu) 问世后不久，我尚在图宾根 (Tübingen) 求学，他把这些诗句送给了我：

“Hat dieses Buch, das ew’ge Wahrheit ist,

Ein lügenhafter Gnostiker geschrieben,

So hat seit tausend Jahren Jesus Christ

Den Teufel durch Beelzebub vertrieben.”

“倘若这蕴藏永恒真理的书，

竟出自说谎的诺斯替信徒，

那么千年以来，耶稣基督

便是靠着别西卜把魔鬼驱逐。”↩︎
见策勒 (Zeller)，第414–452页所作的确凿证明（戴尔〔Dare〕英译本，第II卷，第213–254页）。霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)（《符类福音》Syn. Evang.，第875页）说：“Als ausgemacht darf man heutzutage wohl annehmen, dass der Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte und des dritten Evangeliums ein und dieselbePerson sind.”（如今可以视为定论：《使徒行传》与第三福音书的作者是同一个人。）勒南 (Renan) 也以同样肯定的语气说（《使徒们》Les Apôtres，第x、xi页）：“Une chose hors de doute, c’est que les Actes ont eut le méme auteur que le troisiéme évangile et sont une continuation de cet évangile ... La parfaite ressemblance du style et des idées fournissent à cet égard d’abondantes démonstrations .... Les deux livres réunis font un ensemble absolument du mime style, présentant les mémes locutions favorites et la méme façon de citer l’écriture.”（有一点毫无疑问：《使徒行传》与第三福音书出自同一作者，是这部福音书的续篇……文体与思想的完全相似，为此提供了充分的证明……两书合在一起，构成一个文体完全一致的整体，具有同样惯用的措辞，以及同样引用圣经的方式。）朔尔滕 (Scholten) 不赞同这一看法，徒然试图证明：虽然两书都出自保罗的学派，第三位福音作者却把保罗主义置于犹太基督教之上，而《使徒行传》的作者则向犹太基督徒一派推介保罗。福音书旨在论战，《使徒行传》旨在辩护。见《保罗的福音》等 (Das Paulinische Evangelium, etc.)，雷德彭宁 (Redepenning) 译自荷兰文，埃尔伯费尔德 (Elberf.)，1881年，第315页。↩︎
宗教改革的历史提供了一个类似的例子：基督教借着路德 (Luther)、加尔文 (Calvin)、克兰麦 (Cranmer) 和诺克斯 (Knox) 的劳苦，从罗马（基督徒的耶路撒冷）进一步传到维滕贝格 (Wittenberg)、日内瓦 (Geneva)、牛津 (Oxford) 和爱丁堡 (Edinburgh)。↩︎
埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 在他的《使徒行传注释》（1872年），第35页及后，根据我们这个小词的使用及其与其他部分的联系，推断全书出自同一作者，而此人正是安提阿 (Antioch) 的路加，即保罗“所爱的”朋友和同工。勒南 (Renan) 说（《使徒们》La apôtres，第xiv页）：“Je persiste à croire que le dernier rédacteur des Acts est bien le disciple de Paul qui dit ’nous’ aux derniers chapitres.”（我仍然相信，《使徒行传》的最后编撰者，确实就是在最后几章说‘我们’的那位保罗的门徒。）但他把成书年代定在公元71或72年（第xx页）；在其《福音书》(Les Évangiles)，第xix章，第435页及后，又定得更晚，放到图密善 (Domitian) 时代。↩︎
1790年初版，此后屡次刊行。另见普兰普特里 (Plumptre) 博士《使徒行传注释》(Com. on Acts)，第x、xi页的平行经文表。↩︎
《犹太古史》(Ant.)，XX. 5，§ 1。↩︎
《犹太古史》(Ant.)，XVII. 10。↩︎
见上文，第122页。↩︎
《犹太古史》(Ant.)，XVIII. 1；XX. 5，§ 2；《犹太战争》(War)，II. 8，§ 1。在第一处，约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 称犹大为高兰人 (Gaulonite)（即来自加利利以东地区），但在另一处又称他为加利利人。他可能生于高兰尼提斯 (Gaulonitis)，而居于加利利。↩︎
斯特拉波 (Strabo)，XVII.，第820页；参普林尼 (Pliny)，IV. 35；狄奥·卡西乌斯 (Dion Cass.)，LIV. 5。↩︎
约瑟夫斯 (Josephus)，《犹太古史》(Ant.)，XX. 5；参塔西佗 (Tacitus)，《编年史》(Ann.)，XII. 43；苏维托尼乌斯 (Sueton.)，《克劳狄传》(Claud.)，28。↩︎
《犹太古史》(Ant.)，XVIII. 8。↩︎
斯特拉波 (Strabo)，XIV.，末尾。↩︎
狄奥·卡西乌斯 (Dio Cassius)，LIII. 12。↩︎
阿克曼 (Akerman)，《钱币图解》(Numismatic Illustrations)，第39–42页。↩︎
ΤΩΝ ΕΠΙ - ΠΑΥΛΟΥ - [ΑΝΘ]ΥΠΑΤΟΥ^*。参见路易·帕尔马·迪·切斯诺拉 (Louis Palma di Cesnola)，《塞浦路斯：古城、坟墓与神庙》(Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples)，纽约，1878年，第424页及下页。他说：“方伯保罗可能就是《使徒行传》第13章的士求保罗，因为省略一两个名字的情形并不罕见。”莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教在《当代评论》(Cont. Review) 1876年，第290页及下页，对省略“士求”一名作了令人满意的解释；他还从老普林尼 (Pliny) 的著作中考定了士求保罗这个名字。老普林尼在《自然史》(Natural History) 第I卷中，两次提到他是一位拉丁文作家，并把他列为第II、XVIII卷所述事实的主要依据，其中有两件事尤其与塞浦路斯有关。医生盖伦 (Galen) 于公元151年在罗马遇见的执政官 L. 士求保罗 (L. Sergius Paulus)，可能是那位因使徒而归信者的后裔；盖伦曾多次提到他，起初用他的全名，后来则只称他为保罗。↩︎
塔西佗 (Tacitus)，《编年史》(Ann.)，I. 76；苏维托尼乌斯 (Sueton.)，《克劳狄传》(Claudius)，第25章。↩︎
《变形记》(Metam.)，VIII. 625–724。↩︎
狄奥·卡西乌斯 (Dion Cass.)，LI. 4；普林尼 (Pliny)，《自然史》(Nat. Hist.)，IV. 11。↩︎
斯特拉波 (Strabo)，XIII. 4，§ 14。在当地发现的铭文证实，那里曾有一个紫色布匹商人的行会，吕底亚可能与之有联系。↩︎
τοὺς πολιτάρχας^*，即 τούς ἄρχοντας τῶν πολιτῶν^*，praefectos civitatis，城里的官长。格林 (Grimm) 说：“Usitatius Graecis erat, πολίαρχος^*”（“希腊人更常用的是上述词形”）。↩︎
伯克 (Boeckh)、利克 (Leake) 和豪森 (Howson) 均以希腊字母刊载了这块帖撒罗尼迦铭文（见康尼比尔与豪森 (Conybeare and Howson)，《圣保罗的生平与书信》(Life and Letters of St. Paul)，第IX章，伦敦大开本，I. 860）。其中三个名字与保罗在该地区的朋友相同：庇哩亚的所巴特（《使徒行传》20:4）、马其顿的该犹（19:29），以及帖撒罗尼迦的西公都（20:4）。我这里只引第一行：

ΠΟΛΕΙΤΑΡΧΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΩΣΙΠΑΤΡΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΟ^*。↩︎
参见对《使徒行传》17:16、18、21、22、23、28的各家注释。17:23中的单数 θεῷ^* 引起了一些困难；因为保萨尼亚斯 (Pausanias，I. 1–4) 提到，在雅典的港口和街道上设有“献给未识诸神的祭坛”；第欧根尼·拉尔修 (Diogenes Laërtius) 则在《埃庇米尼德传》(Epimen.)，第3章中，说雅典许多地方有“无名的祭坛”。有人认为，保罗指的是其中一座祭坛，或认为他巧妙地将这多神教的铭文改用于自己的论证。在那篇被误归于琉善 (Lucian) 名下的对话《爱国者》(Philopatris) 中，有一位对话者指着“雅典未识的神”起誓。↩︎
参见伍德 (Wood)，《以弗所的发现》(Discoveries at Ephesus)，以及上引莱特福特的文章，第295页。莱特福特曾协助伍德先生解释这些铭文。↩︎
比较本卷§ 82，以及我的《希腊文新约指南》(Companion to the Greek Test.)，第61页。↩︎
这一观点最先由鲍尔 (Baur) 提出（1836、1838及1845年），随后施内肯布格尔 (Schneckenburger，1841年) 加以发挥，策勒 (Zeller，1854年) 又作了更充分的阐述，希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1872年，以及其1875年的《导论》〔Einleitung〕) 亦然。勒南 (Renan) 的看法虽稍有修正，实质上也相同。他说：“Les Actes sont une histoire dogmatique, arrangée pour appuyer les doctrines orthodoxes du temps ou inculquer les idées qui souriaíent le plus à la pieté de l’auteur.”（“《使徒行传》是一部教义性的历史，经过编排，以支持当时的正统教义，或灌输那些最投合作者虔敬之心的观念。”见《使徒们》〔Les Apôtres〕，第xxix页。）他认为事情不可能不如此，因为我们只能从信徒的报道中认识宗教史；“i il n’y a que le sceptique qui écrive l’histoire ad narrandum”（“只有怀疑者才为叙事本身而写历史”）。↩︎
σύμφυτοι^*，《罗马书》6:5；不是“一同栽种”（如英王钦定本及武加大译本所译）；因为这个词源自 φύω^*，意为使之生长，而非源自 φυτεύω^*，意为栽种。↩︎
以亚美尼亚文保存下来的所谓《哥林多人致保罗书》及保罗的答书，都是伪作，毫无价值。↩︎
因此，俄利根 (Origen) 称之为 ἐπιστολὴ καθολική^*，即一封公函。↩︎
罗伊斯 (Reuss)，《新约圣书史》(Gesch. d. heil. Schriften N. Testaments)，第5版，I. 138：“Thatsache ist, dass die Ep. Jacobi für sich allein mehr wörtliche Reminiscenzen aus den Reden Jesu enthält als alle übrigen Apost. Schriften zusammen .... Insofern dieselben offenbar nicht aus schriftlichen Quellen geflossen sind, mögen sie mit das höhere Alter deg Briefs verbürgen.”（“事实是，单是《雅各书》一卷，就比其余所有使徒著作合起来，含有更多逐字追忆耶稣言论的语句……这些语句显然并非出自书面资料，因而也可作为这封书信年代较早的凭证。”）最近的《雅各书》注释者拜施拉格 (Beyschlag，见迈耶丛书中许特尔注释的新版，1881年) 和埃德曼 (Erdmann，1881年)，赞同施内肯布格尔、尼安德 (Neander) 和蒂尔施 (Thiersch)，将这封书信列在基督教文献最早期，反对图宾根学派 (Tübingen school) 把它看作一篇反保罗的论战文章。罗伊斯持中间立场。基督教教义尚未充分发展的状态，以 συναγωγὴ^* 称基督徒聚会（《雅各书》2:2），尚未明确区分犹太人与犹太基督徒而统称他们为“十二个支派”，以及期望主即将再临（5:8），这些共同表明它的年代十分古老。↩︎
对于《彼得前书》5:13中“巴比伦”的含义，注释者意见不一：它究竟是《启示录》中奥秘的巴比伦，即作为逼迫势力的异教罗马（教父、罗马天主教神学家，以及蒂尔施、鲍尔、勒南持此说），还是幼发拉底河畔的巴比伦，抑或埃及的巴比伦（旧开罗）。这个问题与彼得是否曾在罗马有关，已在§ 26讨论过。对于写作日期，注释者也意见不一，因为他们对彼得这封书信与《罗马书》《以弗所书》《雅各书》的关系，以及书信所提及之逼迫的性质，各有不同的看法。魏斯 (Weiss) 否认彼得曾使用保罗的书信，将其年代推早至54年；图宾根学派的批评家则将它推迟到图拉真 (Trajan) 时期（福尔克马尔〔Volkmar〕甚至推到140年！）；但大多数批评家将它定在63至67年之间，勒南则定在63年，即尼禄逼迫开始前不久。这一次我同意他。参见许特尔 (Huther，迈耶丛书)，第4版，第30页及后；魏斯，《彼得问题》(Die Petrinische Frage，1865年)；勒南，《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，第vi、110页；图宾根学派方面，参见普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer)，《保罗主义》(Paulinismus)，第417页及后；希尔根费尔德，《导论》(Einleitung)，第625页及后；霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，《导论》(Einleitung)，第514页及后（第2版）。↩︎
莱顿 (Leighton) 大主教的《彼得前公函实用注释》(Practical Commentary upon the First Epistle General of St. Peter)，其属灵深度与感人力量至今仍无出其右者。他说：“这封卓越的书信，对于基督徒在通往天国的旅程中，为获得鼓励与指引所需要的安慰和教训，作了简短而又极为清晰的概括；它使他的思想与愿望向那福乐升腾，并坚固他，抵挡路上一切的阻力，无论是内在的败坏，还是外来的试探与苦难。”本格尔 (Bengel) 说：“Mirabilis est gravitas et alacritas Petrini sermonis, lectorem suavissime retinens.”（“彼得言语的庄重与活泼，奇妙地融为一体，以极其甘美的方式吸引着读者。”）阿尔福德 (Alford) 说：“在神圣正典中，没有哪封书信的语言与精神，比这封更直接地切合基督徒生活中个人的试炼、需要与软弱。”↩︎
伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus)、加尔文 (Calvin)、格劳秀斯 (Grotius)、尼安德 (Neander)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、许特尔 (Huther)，以及所有图宾根学派的批评家。↩︎
魏斯 (Weiss)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、弗龙米勒 (Fronmüller)、阿尔福德 (Alford)，尤其是 Fr. 施皮塔 (Fr. Spitta) 的《彼得后书与犹大书》(Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas，哈勒，1885年，544页)。↩︎
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)、俄利根 (Origen，在希腊文著作中) 及埃皮法尼乌斯 (Epiphanius)，都将他与使徒们区别开来。《马太福音》18:55及《马可福音》6:3将他与雅各并列，称为耶稣的弟兄。关于这整个问题，比较§ 27的讨论。↩︎
比较《约翰二书》4–7与《约翰一书》2:7、8；4:2、3。↩︎
正如他自己写给帖撒罗尼迦人的话（《帖撒罗尼迦前书》2:7）：“我们在你们中间存心温柔，如同乳母顾惜自己的孩子。”他又写信给忘恩负义、反复无常的加拉太人（4:9）说：“我小子啊，我为你们再受生产之苦，直等到基督成形在你们心里。”↩︎
“Das ist das Ende der Philosophie: zu wissen, dass wir glauben müssen.”（“哲学的终点，就是知道我们必须相信。”）——盖贝尔 (Geibel)。↩︎
这是勒南 (Renan) 的话；尽管他有着挑剔的法国式品味，又厌恶保罗的神学，却仍禁不住赞赏保罗崇高的天才。↩︎
斯特拉波 (Strabo) 称它为 Θεσσαλονίκαια^*。它现今的名称是萨洛尼基 (Salonichi)。↩︎
《帖撒罗尼迦后书》2:1–12这段难解的经文，必须联系《但以理书》（第四国）和《启示录》的预言来解释。参见吕内曼 (Lünemann)、兰格 (Lange，由里根巴赫〔Riggenbach〕撰写、利利〔Lillie〕翻译)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)、乔伊特 (Jowett)、马库斯·多兹 (Marcus Dods) 的注释，以及法勒 (Farrar) 关于“大罪人”的附论（《圣保罗》〔St. Paul〕，II. 583–587）。许多现代释经者采纳教父的解释，认为“拦阻的力量”（τὸ κατέχον^*）就是罗马帝国，“拦阻者”（ὁ κατέχων^*）就是当时在位的皇帝（克劳狄），而“大罪人”就是他的继任者尼禄。但最后这一点十分可疑。整段经文必有远远超出古罗马帝国时代的预言视野。在相继的各个时代中，有“许多敌基督”，也有许多起拦阻作用的力量与人物，而末日显然仍在遥远的将来。“显然，无论这些话指的是什么，所指的必是某种从保罗时代直到我们今日一直存在的事物，某种在这整个时期一直起着遏制邪恶作用的事物。”（多兹，载沙弗的《新约注释》〔Com. on the N. T〕，III. 535。）↩︎
格林 (Grimm)、吕内曼 (Lünemann)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、利普修斯 (Lipsius) 等人已经驳斥了鲍尔的论据。希尔根费尔德也承认第一封书信是真作；他说（《导论》〔Einleit.〕，第246页）：“In dem ganzen Brief erkennt man die Sprache des Paulus. Es ist kein Grund vorhanden, denselben dem Paulus abzusprechen. Nicht so bedeutsam, wie andere Briefe, ist derselbe eines Paulus keineswegs unwürdig, vielmehr ein liebenswürdiges Denkmal väterlicher Fürsorge des Apostels für eine junge Christengemeinde.”（“整封书信都可辨认出保罗的语言。没有理由否认它出于保罗。它虽不及其他书信重要，却绝非有失保罗的身份，反倒是一份可亲的见证，表明使徒对一个新生基督徒会众的父亲般的关怀。”）但希尔根费尔德将《帖撒罗尼迦后书》归于图拉真时代，视之为一种保罗式的启示录；这就颠倒了鲍尔的看法，后者认为前书是对后书的模仿。格劳秀斯 (Grotius) 与埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 同样将后书置于前书之前（主要是因为《帖撒罗尼迦前书》1:7、8似乎暗示，该会众已闻名于整个希腊），但他们认为两封都是真作。↩︎
若非使徒如此告诉我们，几乎难以相信基督教会中会有这样的丑事。关于《哥林多前书》5:1及后所述乱伦一事，我们应当记得，哥林多 (Corinth) 是全希腊最淫荡的城市；在其卫城上那座供奉城市守护女神的宏伟神庙里，养着一千多名供外来客人取乐的神庙女奴（ἱερόδουλοι^*）。Κορινθία κόρη^* 是妓女的称呼。因此，贞洁是在当地最难实践的美德之一；也正因如此，使徒才针对当时的特殊处境，提出以完全禁欲来根治的劝告。↩︎
关于哥林多各党派的问题（特别是基督党），我已在《使徒教会史》(Hist. of the Ap. Church)，第285–291页作了详细讨论。鲍尔论此题的文章（1831年），揭开了图宾根理论发展的序幕。↩︎
比较《哥林多前书》16:5、8；5:7、8；《使徒行传》19:10、21；20:31。↩︎
《哥林多后书》7:5；8:1；9:2。一些古抄本注明，后书写于腓立比。↩︎
关于文本异文，参见韦斯科特与霍尔特 (Westcott and Hort)，《附录》(Appendix)，第110–114页。罗伊斯 (Reuss)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、法勒 (Farrar) 认为，《罗马书》第16章（或16:3–20）是写给以弗所的。勒南推测，一位编者把保罗同一封通函的四份副本合并起来；每份各致一个不同的教会，结尾也各不相同。这两种看法都比鲍尔将最后两章斥为伪作要好；其实这两章充满了保罗的精神。希尔根费尔德（《导论》〔Einleit.〕，第323页）和普弗莱德雷尔（《保罗主义》〔Paulinismus〕，第314页）反对鲍尔，坚持《罗马书》第15、16章的真实性。关于《罗马书》第16章中的人名，参见莱特福特《腓立比书注释》(Com. on Philippians)，第172–176页那段富有启发的讨论。↩︎
《腓立比书》1:7、13、14、17；《以弗所书》3:1（“为你们外邦人作了基督耶稣被囚的”）；4:1（“在主里被囚的”）；《歌罗西书》4:3、18（“你们要记念我的捆锁”）；《腓利门书》10、13；比较《使徒行传》28:17、30。↩︎
伯特格尔 (Böttger)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯 (Weiss) 持此说。蒂尔施甚至认为《提摩太后书》也写于凯撒利亚，但他否认保罗曾第二次在罗马被囚。↩︎
这是批评家中占主导地位的看法。我已在《使徒教会史》(History of the Apost. Ch.，1853年)，第322页及后讨论过这一次序。↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot，第31页) 持此说，法勒 (Farrar，II. 417) 随从他。埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 同样把《腓立比书》置于《歌罗西书》之前，却否认《以弗所书》的真实性。布利克 (Bleek) 认为，现有资料不足以判定写作的先后次序。参见他的《导论》(Einleitung)，第461页，以及1865年出版的遗著《歌罗西书、腓利门书与以弗所书讲义》(Lectures on Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians)，第7页。↩︎
据塔西佗 (Tacitus，《编年史》〔Ann〕，XIV. 27)，地震发生于尼禄在位第七年；据优西比乌 (Eusebius，《编年史》〔Chron.〕，Ol.210, 4)，则在第十年；地震也波及希拉波立 (Hierapolis) 和歌罗西 (Colossae)。↩︎
伯克 (Boeckh) 发表、莱特福特引用的一篇希腊文铭文，以如下呼语向希拉波立 (Hierapolis) 致意：

“万福，辽阔亚细亚全境最美的土地；

万福，黄金之城，神圣的仙女，

潺潺溪流是你佩戴的珠宝。”↩︎
爱比克泰德 (Epictetus，Ἐπίκτητος^*) 原是以巴弗提 (Epaphroditus，他自己也是尼禄的释奴) 的奴隶，后来获释。他比保罗年轻得多，起初在罗马授徒；图密善驱逐哲学家以后，他在伊庇鲁斯 (Epirus) 的尼科波利 (Nicopolis) 授徒，他的言论（《手册》〔Enchiridion〕）由阿里安 (Arrian) 记录下来。因为他像苏格拉底 (Socrates) 一样，自己没有留下著作。正如莱特福特所说，倘若他曾与保罗或以巴弗 (Epaphras) 相遇，那便能“解开不止一个谜”。但他没有显出任何认识基督教的迹象，正如塞涅卡一样；塞涅卡与保罗的通信是伪作，尽管两人都曾在尼禄统治下住在罗马。一个世纪以后的马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius) 逼迫基督徒，在《沉思录》(Meditations，XI. 3) 中只提到他们一次，把他们英勇殉道的热忱归于纯粹的顽固。这些哲学家自恃的斯多葛派道德，尽管崇高，却更可能阻碍而非促进他们接受以悔改和谦卑为根基的基督教。↩︎
Κολοσσαί^*，Colossae，是最古抄本的正确读法，有别于后来的 Κολασσαί^*，Colossae。希罗多德 (Herodotus) 称它为 πόλις μεγάλη^*（大城），色诺芬 (Xenophon) 称它为 εὐδαίμων καὶ μεγάλη^*（富庶而宏大）。中世纪时，它被称为 Χῶναι^*。今乔诺斯 (Chonos) 镇以北两英里处，尚存少许遗迹；该镇居民为基督徒和土耳其人。↩︎
《使徒行传》16:6（τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν^*）；18:23。↩︎
《歌罗西书》2:1；比较1:4、8、9；以及莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《注释》(Com.)，第23页及后、第238页。↩︎
《歌罗西书》1:7；4:12；比较《腓利门书》23。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，第663页) 认为，那些教会是保罗建立的，并据此反对这封书信的真实性，因为书信所暗示的恰好相反。但一个伪作者要避开这样一个表面的矛盾，该是何等容易。↩︎
《歌罗西书》4:16：τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικαίας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε^*。这是“留在老底嘉的那封信，你们要从那里取来”的简略说法。布利克 (Bleek) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 在该处的注释均作此解。↩︎
关于歌罗西的异端，我主要参照尼安德 (Neander，I. 319及后)、布利克 (Bleek) 的讲义（第11–19页），以及莱特福特 (Lightfoot)《注释》(Com.) 中那篇有价值的附论（第73–113页）；莱特福特赞同尼安德和布利克，但论述更为详尽。莱特福特驳斥了希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 的观点（《诺斯替主义与新约》〔Der Gnosticismus u. das N. Test.〕，载《科学神学杂志》〔“Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.”〕，第XIII卷，第233页及后）；后者主张，这封书信反对两种不同的异端，即纯粹的诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism，《歌罗西书》2:8–10) 和纯粹的犹太教 (Judaism，2:16–23)。比较他的《导论》(Einleitung)，第665页及后。这两段经文由 τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου^*（2:8与2:20）联系起来，而诺斯替主义后来的历史，也以更为发展的形式显出同样奇特的混合：犹太化成分与异教化成分混杂在一起。参见第二卷论诺斯替主义的一章。↩︎
πλήρωμα^* 一词源于 πληροῦν^*，意为充满、完成；它在《新约》中出现十八次，在保罗书信中出现十三次（参见布鲁德〔Bruder〕）。它表示动词所含动作的结果，即补足、完整、充盈、完美；而在较广的意义上（如《约翰福音》1:16；《歌罗西书》1:19；2:9），则表示丰满、丰盛。像其他以—μα^* 结尾的名词一样，它具有主动意义：充满的实质，那充满某物的东西（id quod implet，或 id quo res impletur）。古典作家常如此使用，例如 πλήρωμα πόλεως^*，一城的人口；《七十士译本》用它译希伯来文 מְלֹא^*，意为丰盛，例如 τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς γῆς^*，或 τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θαλάσσης^*，即充满大地或海洋的万物；《新约》中也有这样的用法，例如《马可福音》6:43（κοφίνων πληρώματα^*）；8:20（σπυρίδων πλ.^*）。被动意义则很少见：被充满的东西（id quod impletur 或 impletum est），即盛满的容器。比较格林 (Grimm) 和鲁滨逊 (Robinson) 在该词条下的解释，尤其是弗里切 (Fritzsche)，《罗马书注释》(Ad Rom.)，II. 469及后，以及莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《歌罗西书》(Coloss.)，第323页及后。↩︎
在这段经文中，它相当于 πλήρωσις^*，legis observatio，即遵守律法。↩︎
《歌罗西书》2:9，τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος^*，deitas，神性本体，不是 θειότητος^*，divinitas，神圣性质。本格尔 (Bengel) 说：“Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura.”（“不只是神圣的能力，而是神的本性本身。”）莱特福特也作此解。↩︎
或者，按照另一种同样有充分依据的读法，μονογενὴς θεός^*，即那位独生的上帝。↩︎
《使徒行传》20:28。一些最有分量的见证（a、B、Vulg.等）读作“上帝的教会”。韦斯科特与霍尔特 (Westcott and Hort)，以及《英文修订本》也如此；但美国委员会与蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 一样，更赞同 τοῦ κυρίου^* 这一读法；它得到A、C、D、E等的支持，也更切合这里的上下文。保罗常说“上帝的教会”，却从未说“上帝的血”。正如霍尔特博士所提出的，可能有一份极早的抄本在 τοῦ ἰδίου^* 之后漏掉了 υἱοῦ^*。详细讨论见阿博特 (Abbot) 博士载于1876年《圣经文库》 (“Bibl. Sacra”) 的文章，第313页及后（赞成 κυρίου^*）；以及韦斯科特与霍尔特，《希腊文新约》(Greek Test.*)，II，注释，第98页及后（赞成 θεοῦ^*）。↩︎
关于这封书信的精辟分析，我推荐布劳内 (Braune) 在兰格 (Lange) 丛书中的《注释》(Com.，由里德尔〔Riddle〕博士翻译)。他采用两部分的划分，施蒂尔 (Stier) 和阿尔福德 (Alford) 则采用三部分（三位一体式）的划分。另参见里德尔博士在沙弗《新约通俗注释》(Popular Com. on the New Test.)，III（1882年），第355页所作的清晰分析。I. 教义部分，第1–3章：教会是基督奥秘的身体，在基督里蒙拣选、蒙救赎，并联为一体。II. 实践部分，第4–6章：因此，教会所有肢体都当行在合一中、爱中、新生的样式中，并穿戴上帝所赐的全副军装。但我们应当记得，这封书信并非严格按系统编排，教义的阐述与实践的劝勉彼此交织。↩︎
西奈抄本和梵蒂冈抄本省略了 ἐν Ἐφέσῳ^*。据德尔图良 (Tertullian) 报道，马吉安 (Marcion) 保留了这封书信，却题为“致老底嘉人”。霍尔特 (Hort) 博士说：“从抄写过程所得的证据，有力地支持了文献中不含 ἐν Ἐφέσῳ^* 的见证。”迈耶 (Meyer) 和沃尔德马尔·施密特 (Woldemar Schmidt，在迈耶《歌罗西书注释》第五版中) 赞成保留这些字的论据，并无定论之力。↩︎
早在第二世纪，马吉安 (Marcion) 就持这种看法。然而迈耶 (Meyer) 在该处的注释中坚持认为，这里指的是另一封已经失传的信，正如有一封致哥林多人的信已经失传一样。伪托的《致老底嘉人书》（见法布里基乌斯〔Fabricius〕，Cod. Apocr. N. T.，I. 873及后）共二十节，不过是从保罗其他书信中拼凑出来的伪作。它被第二次尼西亚会议 (Second Council of Nicaea，787年) 禁止。↩︎
但这与拘泥教会形式恰恰相反。那种狭隘、机械而迂腐的教会形式主义，执着于外在形式和仪式的壳，却把它们误当作内在的核；没有什么比这更远离保罗的精神。↩︎
《以弗所书》5:14可能是一首仿照希伯来诗平行体写成的早期赞美诗的一部分：

“你这睡着的人，当醒过来，

从死里复活，

基督就要光照你。”↩︎
这样的句子若逐字译成英文，无疑显得沉重而笨拙。缺乏同情理解的批评家，如德韦特 (De Wette)、鲍尔 (Baur)、勒南 (Renan)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，将《以弗所书》的文体描述为冗赘、散漫、堆砌、单调而重复。但一流的古典学者格劳秀斯 (Grotius) 却在序言中如此形容它：“rerum sublimitatem adaequans verbis sublimioribus quam ulla habuit unquam lingua humana”（“以人类任何语言所未曾有过的崇高言辞，与所论事物的崇高相称”）。哈勒斯 (Harless) 断言，整封书信没有一个字是多余的，并在他极出色的注释中证明了这一点。阿尔福德 (Alford，III. 25) 说：“默示之灵在人心中所产生的奇妙果效，在圣经中没有一处比这封书信更为明显；同样，要辨明这些属灵的事，这里也比任何别处更需要属灵的心思。”他从这个角度比较德韦特和施蒂尔 (Stier) 的注释，对后者的评价未免过高。莫里斯 (Maurice，《新约的合一》〔Unity of the N. T.〕，第535页) 说：“人人都必感到，这封书信的文体中有一种满溢的丰富，仿佛使徒的心思容纳不下在他里面运行的思想，仿佛他所说出的每一个思想，前后都有一串发光的思想相随，无法与之分离。”埃利科特 (Ellicott) 主教说，第一章的难处“如此重大，如此深奥，以至最精确的语言、最细致的分析，也显得过于贫乏、过于软弱，不能传达这些庄严表述的力量或联系，以及这些深不可言的思想”。里德尔 (Riddle) 博士说：“正是这封书信的伟大，使它如此难解；思想似乎在与言辞搏斗，而言辞似乎不足以传达那超绝的意念。”↩︎
拉德纳 (Lardner)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、迈耶霍夫 (Mayerhoff)、霍夫曼 (Hofmann) 和罗伊斯 (Reuss) 依据《歌罗西书》4:16所说“从老底嘉来的书信”，把次序倒转过来，认定这就是作为通函的《以弗所书》。但保罗也可能是预先这样说的。另一方面，将《以弗所书》6:21的 καὶ ὑμεῖς^*（“使你们也同那些我刚写信给的人一样”）与《歌罗西书》4:7相比较，就有理由得出相反的结论（如哈勒斯〔Harless〕在《注释》〔Com.〕，第lix页所表明的）。罗伊斯认为，就同一主题写两封信，第二封通常较短。但相反的情形更常见，正如一本书的第二版通常比第一版篇幅更大。德韦特 (De Wette)、鲍尔 (Baur)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 认为，《以弗所书》是保罗的一位门徒对《歌罗西书》所作的扩充改写（Umarbeitung 与 Ueberarbeitung）。↩︎
《歌罗西书注解》(Annot. ad Col.)，4:16。↩︎
德韦特 (DeWette) 首先攻击《以弗所书》，认为它是保罗的一位门徒对真实的《歌罗西书》所作的冗长扩写（wortreiche Erweiterung）。见他的《新约导论》(Introd. to the New Test.，1826年；梅斯纳〔Messner〕和吕内曼〔Lünemann〕编第6版，1860年，第313页及下页，尤其参见他的《以弗所书注释》〔Com. on Eph.〕，1843年和1847年）。他的疑虑主要基于《以弗所书》表面上对《歌罗西书》的依赖，而未能领略《以弗所书》的独创性和深度。迈耶霍夫 (Mayerhoff) 首先攻击《歌罗西书》（1838年），认为它是在保罗之后对《以弗所书》所作的节略，而他认为后者是真实的。鲍尔 (Baur) 攻击这两封书信（1845年），他的学生施韦格勒 (Schwegler) 也是如此（1846年），将它们归于后期保罗学派的一位反诺斯替主义作者。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1870、1873和1875年) 追随了他。希齐希 (Hitzig) 提出一种折中看法（1870年），认为保罗写给歌罗西人的一封真实书信，后来由《以弗所书》的作者加以扩充和改编；霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 详尽阐发了这一看法，并试图重建保罗的原信（《以弗所书与歌罗西书批判》〔Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe〕，莱比锡，1872年）。但假定保罗另有一封写给歌罗西人的书信，纯属批判学上的虚构。历史只知道这样的一封书信。普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer，1873年，《保罗主义》〔Paulinismus〕，第370页及下页、第434页) 大体同意霍尔茨曼，却假定这两封书信出于不同作者。他认为《以弗所书》是从旧保罗主义向约翰神学的进展。勒南 (Renan) 和埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 承认《歌罗西书》是真实的，却放弃《以弗所书》，不过将它的年代定得比图宾根批评家更早（埃瓦尔德定在公元75年或80年）。另一方面，布莱克 (Bleek)、迈耶 (Meyer)、沃尔德马尔·施密特 (Woldemar Schmidt)、布劳内 (Braune)、魏斯 (Weiss)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、法勒 (Farrar) 都曾有力地为这两封书信的真实性辩护。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教在其《歌罗西书注释》(Com. on Col.) 中，答应在《以弗所书注释》(Com. on Ephes.) 中讨论真实性问题，但该书尚未问世。塞缪尔·戴维森 (Samuel Davidson) 博士在其《新约研究导论》(Introduction to the Study of the New Test.) 修订版（1882年，卷II，第176页及下页、第205页及下页）中，重述了图宾根批评家的反对意见，又加上了一些新意见，却不甚能为他的判断力增光。例如，他认为保罗不可能告诫以弗所人不要再偷窃（弗4:28），也不要醉酒（5:18），因为“小亚细亚的基督徒并没有纵酒的倾向，倒是倾向于禁欲地戒酒；给提摩太的劝告也许更为合适：‘稍微用点酒’”（第213页）。但如此说来，写给哥林多人的书信又当如何解释呢？他们容忍乱伦者留在自己中间，又因放纵饮食而使爱筵蒙羞。包含类似戒除醉酒警告的《罗马书》（罗13:13），又当如何解释呢？而且，若以弗所教会格外纯洁，又有什么能促使一位伪保罗来诋毁它呢？↩︎
法勒 (Farrar，II. 602)：“假如基督死后最初的一百年间，竟出现了一位全然不为人知的作者，冒用保罗之名，以驾驭自如的力量论述那托付给使徒去启示的奥秘，而这种力量连使徒本人也鲜能企及，更绝未超越，我们确实大可惊讶。任何人若研究一下使徒教父留下的著作，就足以惊讶：图宾根学派及其后继者的作者们，竟如此轻易地假定曾有一些保罗，他们生时默默无闻，死后也无人知晓，然而在才智和属灵造诣上，即使不胜过圣保罗本人，也与他不相上下！”↩︎
见查特里斯 (Charteris)《正典性》(Canonicity)，第237页及下页、第247页及下页所引文献。↩︎
这是德韦特 (DeWette) 的主要论据。见其《导论》(Einleitung)，§ 146a 中的平行经文表（第6版，第313–318页）。↩︎
例如 αἰσχρολογία^*（西3:8）、ἀνταναπληρόω^*（1:24）、εἰρηνοποιέω^*（1:20）、ἐθελοθρησκεία^*（2:23）、πιθανολογία^*（2:4）；τὰ ἐπουράνια^*（弗1:3、20；2:6；3:10；6:12）、τὰ πνευματικά^*（6:12）、κοσμοκράτορες^*（6:12）、πολυποίκιλος^* σοφία^*（3:10）。甚至以 ἄφεσις^*（西1:14和弗1:7）代替 πάρεσις^*（罗3:25），也被算作奇异的用语，仿佛保罗从前不知道罪得赦免似的。霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 极为细致地阐发了这种语文学论证。但老学者罗伊斯 (Reuss，I. 112) 认为它毫无用处，甚至戴维森 (Davidson，II. 219) 也不得不承认，“《以弗所书》的思想和措辞一般都是保罗式的”，尽管他又补充说，“二者都显露出另一位作者的痕迹”。↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler) 和希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，《导论》〔Einleit.〕，第652页及下页)。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius)，《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 32：“同一位作者［赫格西普 (Hegesippus)］叙述当时的事件时，又说：‘直到那时，教会仍像纯洁而未受玷污的童女（παρθένος^* καθαρὰ καὶ ἀδιάφθορος ἔμενεν ἡ^* ἐκκλησία^*）；即使有人企图歪曲拯救之福音的纯正教义，他们仍潜伏在黑暗中（ἐν ἀδήλῳ που σκότει^*）；但当使徒的神圣行列归于消逝，那有幸亲耳聆听他们受默示之智慧的一代也都过去之后，不敬虔的谬误便借着假教师的诡诈，开始结党兴起。此时，既无使徒尚在人世，这些人便从此肆无忌惮地（γυμνῇ λοιπὸν ἤδη τῇ κεφαλῇ^*），以他们那冒称为知识的诺斯替之说，对抗真理的福音。’这就是赫格西普的记述。”参海尼兴 (Heinichen) 所编优西比乌著作，卷III，第100–103页对此段的注释。↩︎
同一位赫格西普 (Hegesippus)，在优西比乌 (Eusebius)，IV. 22所引的记述中，将巴勒斯坦教会异端的兴起定在雅各死后不久，并将其中一些追溯到行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)。他显然熟悉教牧书信，并从中借用了 ψευδώνυμος^* γνῶσις^*、ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι^*、ὑγιὴς κανών^* 等用语。↩︎
理性主义的批判学派，于十八世纪中叶在德国由哈雷 (Halle) 的塞姆勒 (Semler，1725–1791年) 开创，到我们这个时代的图宾根学派 (Tübingen School) 达到顶峰。↩︎
奥古斯都 (Augustus) 赐予腓立比 (Philippi) “意大利法权”（jus Italicum）的特殊权利，使它成为罗马人民社会的一个缩影，设有“行政长官”（praetors）、“执杖吏”（lictors），以及其他罗马官员的职衔。《使徒行传》（16:12及下节）叙述中的这座城，正是以这种面貌出现；在那里，“罗马公民身份的自豪和特权，随处呈现在我们面前”。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，第50页及下页，以及布劳内 (Braune) 和伦比 (Lumby)。↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，前引书（l.c.），第53页。↩︎
χαίρετε^*“将临别的祝福与喜乐的劝勉结合起来。它不单是‘再会’，也不单是‘要喜乐’”（莱特福特〔Lightfoot〕）。↩︎
本格尔 (Bengel)：“Summa Epistolae: Gaudeo, gaudete.”（“全信的总意：我喜乐，你们也要喜乐。”）法勒 (Farrar，II. 423)：“任何人若将最著名古典作家身处逆境时的精神，与圣保罗遭受远为深重的冤屈、远为致命的苦难时一贯表现的精神相比——若将《腓立比书》与奥维德 (Ovid) 的《哀歌》(Tristia)、西塞罗 (Cicero) 流放期间的书信，或塞涅卡 (Seneca) 被放逐到科西嘉 (Corsica) 时献给波利比乌斯 (Polybius) 的论著相比——只要他愿意，就能看出基督教为人类的幸福带来了何等不同。”↩︎
十七世纪初，吉森 (Giessen) 与图宾根 (Tübingen) 的路德宗人士之间关于虚己 (kenosis) 的争论，以及十九世纪更为广泛的虚己论著（托马修斯〔Thomasius〕、利布纳〔Liebner〕、盖斯〔Gess〕、戈代〔Godet〕等人）。↩︎
布劳内 (Braune) 博士，载兰格 (Lange)《注释》(Com.)，第4页。↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur) 和施韦格勒 (Swegler) 的论据，已被吕内曼 (Lünemann，1847年)、布吕克纳 (Brückner，1848年)、雷施 (Resch，1850年)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，1871年) 和罗伊斯 (Reuss，1875年) 驳倒；霍尔斯滕 (Holsten，1875和1876年) 的论据，则由P. W. 施密特 (P. W. Schmidt) 在《新约过度批判》(Neutestam, Hyperkritik，1880年) 中驳倒。参霍尔茨曼 (Holzmann) 载于希尔根费尔德的《科学神学杂志》(Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol.)，1881年，第98页及下页的文章。↩︎
亲访其地的H. B. 哈克特 (H. B. Hackett) 博士，纠正了迈耶 (Meyer) 及其他注释家的错误说法，即旧址上至今仍有一个村庄（费利巴〔Felibah〕，或如法勒〔Farrar〕所称的菲利比杰克〔Filibidjek〕）。见他翻译的布劳内 (Braune)《腓立比书注释》(Phil.)，第6页。↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，第64页。但在信奉穆罕默德的土耳其人那使万物凋敝的统治之下，巴勒斯坦 (Palestine)、叙利亚 (Syria) 和小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 的教会，几乎也都有同样悲惨的故事可述。甚至保罗和约翰都曾在那里卓有成效地劳作的以弗所 (Ephesus)，如今也不过略胜于一堆废墟。↩︎
有一种毫无价值的传统，称他为歌罗西 (Colossae) 的主教，并说他在尼禄的逼迫中殉道。阿尼西母 (Onesimus)，以及使徒教会中几乎每一位重要人物，也都这样被变成了主教和殉道者。关于本书信中的名字，见莱特福特 (Lightfoot)《歌罗西书与腓利门书注释》(Com. on Col. and Philem.)，第372页及下页。↩︎
因此，《腓利门书》11节借这个词的含义作了善意的双关：ἄχρηστος^*、εὔχρηστος^*，“从前与你没有益处，但如今与你我都有益处”；20节又借这个名字作双关：ὀναίμην^*，“使我因你得安慰”。↩︎
《腓利门书》18节似乎是在描述实际的过犯，虽以假设的形式陈述：εἰ δέ τι ... ὀφείλει^*（这是 ἔκλεψεν^*，“偷窃”的委婉说法）。使徒不愿伤害奴仆的感情，也不愿激怒主人，便自愿代偿这笔债。↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot，第389页) 说：“福音从未直接攻击奴隶制这一制度；使徒们也从未命令人将释放奴隶视为绝对的义务。值得注意的是，圣保罗在这封书信中，并没有作出任何明确的命令。‘释放’一词仿佛已在他唇边颤动，他却一次也没有说出口。他嘱咐腓利门重新信任逃奴阿尼西母，满怀爱意地接纳他，不再把他当作奴仆，而是当作弟兄；要以对待使徒本人的同样体谅、同样的爱来待他，因为腓利门的一切都得自这位使徒。事实上，他吩咐腓利门所做的，远比释放奴隶更多；但惟独这一件事，他没有直接命令。圣保罗对这件个别事情的处理，恰当地说明了基督教对奴隶制的一般态度。”↩︎
关于这些相互矛盾的传说，见《博兰德派圣徒行传》(Acts Sanctorum Boll.)，XVI. Febr.，II. 857及下页。↩︎
如哈克特 (Hackett，载兰格〔Lange〕)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、伦比 (Lumby) 等人。↩︎
见莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，第383页，以及《议长圣经注释·新约》(Speaker’s Com. New Test.)，III. 829。↩︎
他说（《保罗》〔Paulus〕，第2版，II. 88）：“Es wird hier, im Christenthum die schöne Idee aufgefasst, dass die durch dasselbe mit einander Verbundenen in einer wahren Wesensgemeinschaft mit einander stehen, so dass der Eine in dem Anderen sein eigenes Selbst erkennt, sich mit ihm völlig Eins weiss und einer für alle Ewigkeit dauernden Vereinigung angehört.”（“这里把握住了基督教中一个美好的观念：凡借着基督教彼此联结的人，都处于一种真正的本质相通之中，以致一个人在另一个人身上认出他自己，知道自己与对方完全合一，并同属一种持续直到永远的联合。”）希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 承认本书信的真实性，说（第331页）：“Der ganze Brief trägt das Gepräge der einfachen Wahrheit an sich und verräth auch in den Wortspielen, Philem. 11, 20, die Schreibart des Paulus.”（“整封书信带着朴实真切的印记，甚至在《腓利门书》11、20节的双关语中，也显露出保罗的写作风格。”）↩︎
生平详情见各圣经辞典和注释。↩︎
见基尔希霍费尔 (Kirchhofer)《史料汇编》(Quellensammlung) 中的见证，由查特里斯 (Charteris) 翻译并增补，载《正典性》(Canonicity)，第255–268页。勒南 (Renan) 承认罗马的革利免 (Clemens Romanus)《第一书信》（第44章）与《提摩太后书》之间的相似之处（例如用 ἀνάλυσις^* 一词表示死亡），但假定二者都借用了一个共同来源，即罗马教会惯用的语言；他又假定，教牧书信的伪造者可能利用了保罗的一些真实书信。《基督教会》(L’Église chrét.)，第95页：“Quelques passages de ces trois építres sont d’ailleurs si beaux, qu’on peut se demander si le faussaire n’avait pas entre les mains quelques billets authentiques de Paul.”（“况且，这三封书信中的某些段落如此优美，以致人不禁要问，伪造者手中是否曾有保罗的一些真实短信。”）↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur) 和希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，《导论》〔Einleit.〕，第764页) 将它们的年代推迟至150年（在马吉安〔Marcion〕的140年之后），并认为它们写于罗马。但这是不可能的，而且建立在错误的释经之上。同属图宾根学派的普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer)，将《提摩太后书》置于图拉真 (Trajan) 时代，其余两封则置于哈德良 (Hadrian) 时代。此外，他还认为《提摩太后书》1:15–18和4:9–21，是保罗一封真实书信的片段。又参霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，第271页。↩︎
施拉德 (Schrader)、维瑟勒 (Wieseler)、赖特迈尔 (Reythmayr) 持此说，罗伊斯 (Reuss) 从前也如此（见其《历史》〔Gesch.〕等，第5版，1875年；但在1878年法文版《保罗书信注释》中已撤回此说）。↩︎
狄奥菲拉克特 (Theophylact)、厄库梅尼乌斯 (Oecumenius)、厄舍尔 (Ussher)、皮尔逊 (Pearson)、蒂耶蒙 (Tillemont)、尼安德 (Neander)、布莱克 (Bleek)、吕费 (Ruffet)、兰格 (Lange)、法勒 (Farrar)、普伦普特里 (Plumptre)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 等人持此说。↩︎
埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 和勒南 (Renan) 等批判学者也主张，保罗第一次在罗马被囚后曾获释，并访问西班牙。↩︎
最优秀的释经家认为，ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως^*（英文译本及修订本译作“反对的言论”）仅指异端者用来反对纯正教义的教义命题（参《提摩太后书》2:23；《提多书》1:9）。德韦特 (DeWette)、马蒂斯 (Matthies) 和维辛格 (Wiesinger) 均持此说。霍夫曼 (Hofmann) 和许特尔 (Huther) 则将其等同于 κενοφωνίαι^* 和 λογομαχίαι^*（《提摩太前书》5:4）。霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann，第131页) 同样拒绝鲍尔 (Baur) 的解释。↩︎
霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，前引书，第127页；利普修斯 (Lipsius)、申克尔 (Schenkel)、普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer) 亦持此说。↩︎
见上文本卷第96节。↩︎
这就是鲍尔 (Baur) 和勒南 (Renan) 巧妙的推理（《基督教会》〔L’Egl. chrét.〕，第85页及第94页及后）。参霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，前引书，第XI章，第190页及后，对各项细节的讨论。↩︎
《提摩太前书》1:3；3:14；《提摩太后书》4:9、21；《提多书》1:5；8:12。见上文本卷第61节。公正的主教制作者，如阿尔福德 (Alford) 座堂主任牧师、莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教、斯坦利 (Stanley) 座堂主任牧师，以及普伦普特里 (Plumptre) 座堂主任牧师（载沙弗〔Schaff〕《新约注释》〔Com. N. T.〕，III. 552），都承认这一事实。我要引用法勒 (Farrar) 法政牧师的话（《圣保罗》〔St. Paul.〕，II. 417）：“假若教牧书信含有对第二世纪主教制的明确辩护，单凭这一点便足以证明它们是伪作；但其中完全没有与此相似的事物，这正是证明它们属于使徒时期的最有力证据之一。主教与长老仍是同义词，正如整部新约中的用法一样……提摩太和提多所行使的职能，如今会被称为主教的职能；但他们并不被称为‘主教’。他们的职能是暂时的，只是作为外邦人的使徒所委派的、具有权柄的代表行事。他们所设立的监督，也毫无妄自尊大的迹象。对这些人所要求的资格，几乎全属道德方面。”又参韦斯 (Wace) 教授在《讲解者新约注释》(Speaker’s Com. on the New Test.)，III. 764中的一些精辟评论；那里正确地指出，教牧书信中的教会体制，代表着使徒早期的长老式监督制与后使徒时期的主教制之间的一个中间阶段。↩︎
这一语文学论证始于施莱尔马赫 (Schleiermacher)，但他只限于《提摩太前书》；霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 则将其运用于全部三封书信，详见前引书，第VI章，第84–118页。我要列出他的研究结果。教牧书信共使用897个词。其中有169个为新约其他地方所无的独见词（Hapaxlegomena），即：

(a) 《提摩太前书》中有74个，例如 ἀγαθοεργεῖν, ἁγνεία, ἀδηλότης, ἀνδραποδιστής, ἀνδροφόνος, ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, θεοσέβεια, καταστολή, πλέγμα, πορισμός, φιλαργυρία, ψευδολόγος, ψευδώνυμος^*。

(b) 《提摩太后书》中有46个，例如 ἀγωγή, ἀθλεῖν, βέλτιον, μεμβράνα, ὀρθοτομεῖν, πραγματεία, φιλόθεος^*。

(c) 《提多书》中有28个，例如 αἱρετικός, ἀκατάγνωστος, ἀφθορία, ἀψευδής, καλοδιδάσκαλος, ματαιολόγος, πρεσβύτις, σωτήριος, φιλάγαθος, φίλανδρος^*（παλιγγενεσία^*，《提多书》3:5，也见于《马太福音》19:28，但意义不同）。

(d) 两封或三封教牧书信共有的有21个，例如 διάβολος^*（用作形容词）、ἀνόσιος, διδακτικός, κενοφωνία, νομίμως, παραθήκη, γενεαλογία, εὐσεβῶς^*。↩︎
法勒 (Farrar，II. 611) 断言，《罗马书》中的特有词不少于111个，《哥林多书信》中有180个，《加拉太书》中有57个，《腓立比书》中有54个，《腓利门书》中有6个。路加的特有词汇尤其丰富；正如霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann，第96页) 所指出的，他使用了34个与教牧书信共有的词，此外还有82个保罗未曾使用的词。↩︎
法勒 (Farrer)，II. 611。↩︎
普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer) 在《新教圣经》(Protestanten-Bibel.，第834页) 中说：“Die kirchliche Lehrrichtung der Hirtenbriefe ist eine von der altpaulinischen sehr weit verschiedene. Von den eigenthümlich paulinischen Lehren über Gesetz und Evangelium, über Werke und Glauben finden sich in unseren Briefen nur abgeblasste Reste, die fast wie feststehende überliefte Formeln klingen, während das Glaubensbewusstsein ein anderes geworden ist.”（“教牧书信的教会教义倾向，与早期保罗的倾向相去甚远。保罗关于律法与福音、行为与信心的特有教导，在这些书信中仅存一些褪色的残迹，听起来几乎像是固定的传统公式，而信仰意识已变成另一种样式。”）这一严苛而不公正的评判，忽略了一个事实：这三封书信是教牧书信，而非教义书信。↩︎
例如以下经文：《提摩太前书》1:15、17；2:1、4–6、8；3:2、16；4:1、4、7、10、15；5:8、17、18、22；6:6、9–12；《提摩太后书》1:6；2:11、12、19、22；8:12、16、17；4:2、6–8；《提多书》1:7、15；2:11；8:5、6。↩︎
见本节末尾的附注。↩︎
《希伯来书》9:8：“头一层帐幕仍然立着的时候”（τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν^*）；9:6：“众祭司常常进去”（εἰσίασιν^*，并非英文译本所用的过去式“曾进去”）；8:4
；13:10；6:8；8:13；10:25、27
；12:27。那些把写作年代定于耶路撒冷毁灭以后的人，使这些现在时失去了其自然含义和应有的效力。↩︎
指责作者对犹太礼仪部分无知，是没有根据的，因此不能以此作为支持或反对保罗著作权的论据。《希伯来书》10:11的真确文本并未提到大祭司，而是祭司（ἱερεύς^*）；7:27也不是说大祭司每日献祭，而是说他需要每日悔改。9:4将香坛置于至圣所中；但这似乎是当时流行的一种看法，《巴录启示录》(Apocalypse of Baruch) 也提到了它。见哈纳克 (Harnack) 载于1876年《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken) 的文章，第572页；以及 W. R. 史密斯 (W. R. Smith) 载于《大英百科全书》(Enc. Brit.) 的文章，xi. 606。↩︎
见卡尔普佐夫 (Carpzov)《据亚历山大的斐洛研习希伯来书》(Sacrae Exercitationes in Ep. ad Heb. ex Philone Alex.，Helmstadii，1750年)；里姆 (Riehm)，前引书，第9页及后；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)《导论》(Einleit.)，第384页；以及普弗莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer)《保罗主义》(Paulinismus)。↩︎
这封书信被称为 λόγος παρακλήσεως^*，即劝勉的话，《希伯来书》13:22；参12:5；6:18。↩︎
见末尾附注II。↩︎
德韦特 (DeWette)、托卢克 (Tholuck)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、德利奇 (Delitzsch)、吕内曼 (Lünemann)、里姆 (Riehm)、莫尔 (Moll，载兰格〔Lange〕《注释》〔Com.〕)、兰根 (Langen)、魏斯 (Weiss) 也持此说。↩︎
厄库梅尼乌斯 (Oecumenius)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、兰格 (Lange) 持此说；格林 (Grimm，该词条下) 也说：“Omnes de Judaeis sive aramaice sive graece loquentibus Christiani.”（“一切出身犹太人的基督徒，无论说亚兰语还是希腊语。”）↩︎
埃布拉德 (Ebrard) 持此说。莫尔顿 (Moulton) 则相反，认为这封信是写给巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 的另一处教会的，而《希伯来书》2:3排除了耶路撒冷。↩︎
维瑟勒 (Wieseler，他还附加了一个不大可能的解释，认为涉及利安托波利斯〔Leontopolis〕的俄尼亚〔Onias〕圣殿)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、鲍尔 (Baur)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、克斯特林 (Köstlin)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、本生 (Bunsen)、科尼比尔 (Conybeare) 与豪森 (Howson)，以及普伦普特里 (Plumptre) 持此说。↩︎
冯·霍夫曼 (Von Hofmann)。↩︎
韦特施泰因 (Wetstein)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、库尔茨 (Kurtz)、察恩 (Zahn) 持此说；勒南 (Renan) 也如此，他认为（《敌基督》〔L’Antechrist.〕，第211页）这封书信是巴拿巴在以弗所写给罗马教会的，因此最先在罗马为人所知。↩︎
A. B. 戴维森 (A. B. Davidson)《希伯来书》(Ep. to the Hebr.，1882年)，第18页。↩︎
察恩 (Zahn) 将《希伯来书》10:32–34理解为指尼禄的逼迫；但12:4“你们还没有抵挡到流血的地步”（μέχρι αἵματος^*）排除了这一解释。哈纳克 (Harnack) 还发现了图密善逼迫的痕迹。这就更加不大可能了。↩︎
拉德纳 (Lardner)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、林赛 (Lindsay)、布洛克 (Bullock，载史密斯〔Smith〕《圣经辞典》〔B. Dict.〕，美国版，II. 1028) 等人，将这封书信定于公元63年；德韦特 (DeWette)、莫尔 (Moll) 和兰格 (Lange) 定于62至66年之间（即雅各去世与犹太战争爆发之间）；埃布拉德 (Ebrard) 定于62年；维瑟勒 (Wieseler，《使徒时期年代学》〔Chronol, des Ap. Zeitalters〕，第519页) 定于64年7月；斯图亚特 (Stuart) 和托卢克 (Tholuck) 定于约64年；魏斯 (Weiss) 定于65年（“bald nach der Mitte der sechziger Jahre”，即“六十年代中期后不久”）；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 定于64至66年之间；戴维森 (Davidson，《导论》〔Introd.〕，修订版，I. 222) 定于66年；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 定于67年；勒南 (Renan) 和凯 (Kay) 定于65年。另一方面，察恩 (Zahn) 给出的年代是公元80年，霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 和哈纳克 (Harnack) 定于约90年，福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 和凯姆 (Keim) 则定于116–118年。这些晚期年代根本不可能，不仅由于内在的理由及书中提及提摩太，还因为约在95年写作的罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)，表现出对《希伯来书》十分熟悉。↩︎
根据《希伯来书》13:24的 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας^* 推断写作地点，并不可靠，因为在书信文体中，这句话既可意味着作者当时不在意大利，也可意味着他在意大利（后者若用 ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ^* 或 οἱ ἐξ^*，表达会更明确）。这些弟兄可能是从意大利逃出来的人（布莱克〔Bleek〕持此说）。但后一种看法似乎更自然，而且得到以希腊语为母语的狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 的支持。托卢克 (Tholuck) 和埃布拉德 (Ebrard) 引用了 οἱ ἀπὸ γῆς^* 与 οἱ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης^* 这两个短语，意为陆路和海路的旅客；又引波利比乌斯 (Polybius) 的 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας βασιλεῖς^*，意为亚历山大的诸王。更切合此处的是伪伊格那丢 (Pseudo-Ignatius)《致希罗》(Ad. Her.) 8，察恩 (Zahn) 曾引此文（见他所编《伊格那丢》〔Ign.〕，第270页，第12行）：ἀσπάζονταί σε ... πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ Φιλίππων ἐν χριστῷ, ὅθεν καὶ ἐπέστειλά σοι^*，即“腓立比所有在基督里的人都问你安，我也曾从那里写信给你”。↩︎
西奈抄本 (Sinaitic MS.) 和 C 的卷末题记为“致希伯来人”，A 加上“自罗马”，K 则加上“自意大利”。塞缪尔·戴维森 (Sam. Davidson) 认为写于亚历山大，勒南 (Renan) 则认为写于以弗所；他认为巴拿巴当时与一些逃难的意大利人在那里，而提摩太可能被囚于哥林多（《敌基督》〔L’Antechrist.〕，第210页）。↩︎
关于教父的见证，请参查特里斯 (Charteris)《正典性》(Canonicity) 中的汇编，第272–288页；关于整个问题公允而详尽的讨论，请参布莱克 (Bleek) 的大型《注释》(Com.)，I. 82–272；又参阿尔福德 (Alford)《注释》(Com.)，第iv卷，第I部分，第1–62页。↩︎
在德国，埃尔朗根 (Erlangen) 的冯·霍夫曼 (Von Hofmann) 几乎是唯一持此说者；在英国则有华兹华斯 (Wordsworth) 主教和凯 (Kay) 博士。在较早捍卫保罗著作权的人中，我们要提及欧文 (Owen，1668年)、米尔 (Mill，1707年)、卡尔普佐夫 (Carpzov，1750年)、本格尔 (Bengel，1752年)、赛克斯 (Sykes，1755年)、安德尔·克拉默 (Andr. Cramer，1757年)、施托尔 (Storr，1789年)，尤其是博学而敏锐的罗马天主教学者胡格 (Hug)，他在其《导论》(Einleitung) 中捍卫此说。↩︎
比森塔尔 (Biesenthal) 博士在《使徒保罗致希伯来人的慰问信》(Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer，Leipz.，1878年) 中，曾试图通过把这封书信回译成希伯来文来证明这一理论。但当然，这与德利奇 (Delitzsch) 将整部新约译成希伯来文一样，都不能构成论据。像 πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως^*（《希伯来书》1:1）和 ἔμαθεν ἐφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν^*（5:8）这样精妙的措辞，根本无法用希伯来文再现。↩︎
συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἑλληνικωτέρα^*，即“措辞结构更具希腊风格”。见于优西比乌 (Euseb.)《教会史》(H. E.)，VI. 25。↩︎
τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν^*.↩︎
“Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una.”（“使徒保罗的书信十三封，以及同一作者致希伯来人的书信一封。”）↩︎
加尔文 (Calvin)：“Scriptor unum se ex apostolorum discipulis profitetur, quod est a Paulina consuetudine longe alienum.”（“作者自称为使徒门徒中的一员，这与保罗的惯例相去甚远。”）又在解释《希伯来书》2:3时说：“Hic locus indicio est; epistolam a Paulo non fuisse compositam,”（“这段经文表明，此信并非保罗所作。”）等等。↩︎
如加尔文 (Calvin) 所说：“Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam Paulum esse satis testantur.”（“其教导方式和文体本身，便足以证明作者另有其人，并非保罗。”）关于这一点，尤其应参里姆 (Riehm) 富有价值的《教义观》(Lehrbegriff) 等著作，以及各部新约神学著作中的有关章节；又参库尔茨 (Kurtz)《注释》(Com.)，第24页及后。凯 (Kay) 博士在《讲解者注释》(Speaker’s Com.)，第14页及后，用来反驳这一论据的平行语句，仅能证明无人否认的一点，即《希伯来书》与保罗书信在本质上是一致的。↩︎
论据见布莱克 (Bleek)，第I卷，第338–375页。《讲解者注释》(Speaker’s Com.)，第13页，却轻巧地将其略而不谈。↩︎
在保罗的其他友人中，《希伯来书》13:23提及提摩太，因而排除了他。马可、底马、提多、推基古、以巴弗提、以巴弗、亚里达古、亚居拉，以及又称犹士都的耶数，从未被提出为可能的作者。伯梅 (Böhme)、明斯特 (Mynster) 和里姆 (Riehm，第890页及后) 则赞同西拉 (Silas)，即西拉瓦努 (Silvanus) 的可能性，因为他的地位显要，见《使徒行传》15:22、27、34、40；16:19；《彼得前书》5:12。↩︎
德尔图良 (Tertullian)、乌尔曼 (Ullmann)、维瑟勒 (Wieseler)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、里奇尔 (Ritschl)、勒南 (Renan)、察恩 (Zahn) 持此说。W. R. 史密斯 (W. R. Smith，在《大英百科全书》〔Enc. Brit.〕中) 也倾向于巴拿巴假说。↩︎
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria，不过他误以为路加只是译者)、加尔文 (Calvin)、格劳秀斯 (Grotius)、克雷尔 (Crell)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、德利奇 (Delitzsch)、德林格 (Döllinger) 持此说。埃布拉德假定，路加应保罗的请求并以保罗的名义写了这封书信，而总体布局与主要思想则由保罗提出。这是路加假说最为可信的形式，但仍无法解释教义上的差异。↩︎
德利奇 (Delitzsch) 对这一语言学论证发挥过度，又以想象出来的或牵强的类比削弱了它。见吕内曼 (Lünemann) 的批评，第24–31页。↩︎
俄利根 (Origen) 将此说与路加说并列，作为一种主观推测提及（Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν^*，即“后来成为罗马人主教的革利免写了这封书信”）。伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 和比斯平 (Bisping) 又重新提出此说。↩︎
路德 (Luther)、奥西安德 (Osiander)、诺顿 (Norton)、塞姆勒 (Semler)、布莱克 (Bleek)、托鲁克 (Tholuck)、克雷德纳 (Credner)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、本生 (Bunsen)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、兰格 (Lange)、莫尔 (Moll)、肯德里克 (Kendrick)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、吕内曼 (Lünemann)、库尔茨 (Kurtz)、塞缪尔·戴维森 (Samuel Davidson)、A. B. 戴维森 (A. B. Davidson) 持此说。亚波罗假说一向最为流行，直到最近几年，勒南 (Renan)、察恩 (Zahn) 和 W. 罗伯逊·史密斯 (W. Robertson Smith) 才使潮流再度转向巴拿巴假说。里姆 (Riehm) 经过充分而审慎的讨论，在亚波罗与西拉之间犹豫不决，最后却以俄利根 (Origen) 谦逊地承认自己无知的话作结（第894页）。↩︎
《致哥林多人书》(Ep. ad Cor.)，第47章。↩︎
Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ^*，《启示记》1:1。抄本 Cod. א^* 中最古老的题名是 αποκαλυψις ιωανου^*。较晚的抄本加上了 τοῦ ἁγίου^* 和 τοῦ θεολόγου^* 等字样。↩︎
“Tot verba, tot mysteria.”（“有多少字，就有多少奥秘。”）——“Niemand weiss, was darinnen steht.”（“无人知道其中写的是什么。”）茨温利 (Zwingli) 不肯从《启示录》中取任何经文作为教义的依据。↩︎
人们强加于《启示录》的无稽之谈、错误年代计算和预言，其数量之多令人惊异；这也说明了罗伯特·索思 (Robert South) 那句讽刺话的由来。这位持加尔文主义、却又猛烈反对清教主义的传道人说：“那本名叫《启示录》的书，越研究就越不明白，因为一般说来，研究它的人若不是原已疯癫，就是被它弄疯的。”（《讲道集》〔Serm.〕第XXIII篇，第I卷，第377页，费城版，1844年。）这句话有时被误归于加尔文 (Calvin)，但他对这卷书十分尊重，也常引用其中的经文阐明教义，只是出于谦逊或明智，没有为它撰写注释。↩︎
《启示录》4:11；5:8–14；7:12–17；11:15；14:13；15:3；19:1、2、6、7。↩︎
赫尔德 (Herder)：“先知书中有多少段落，其最初所指的历史事物是晦暗不明的，然而这些段落包含神圣的真理、教训和安慰，仍是赐给一切心灵、一切世代的吗哪。这卷几乎荟萃所有先知和使徒之言的书，岂不也应如此吗？”↩︎
《约翰启示录导论》(Zur Einleit. in die Offenb. Joh.)，第1页。译文有所节略。↩︎
戈代教授 (Prof. Godet) 把《启示录》与被视为戏剧诗的《雅歌》相比，称它为“新约的雅歌”，正如《雅歌》是“旧约的启示录”。但我看不出这一比较有何贴切之处。艾希霍恩 (Eichhorn) 把《启示录》当作一部正规的戏剧，分为序幕、三幕正剧和尾声。↩︎
见吕克 (Lücke)，第66–345页；兰格 (Lange)，第6页及后；希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)，《犹太启示文学》(Die jüdische Apokalyptik，1857年)；许雷尔 (Schürer)，《新约时代史》(N. T’liche Zeitgeschichte，1874年)，第511–563页。↩︎
戈代 (Godet，第297页)：“《启示录》是珍贵的器皿，基督徒盼望的宝藏存放其中，为着教会的一切世代，尤其是为着十字架下的教会。”钱伯斯博士 (Dr. Chambers，第15页)：“这卷奥秘之书的宗旨，不是说服不信者，不是阐明上帝的预知，也不是满足人窥探未来的躁妄欲望，而是造就每一世代的基督门徒：向他们揭示世上争战的性质与特征，使他们预备受试炼，不以为奇；以得胜的展望安慰他们，使他们确信上帝以主权掌管一切人与事，并指引他们仰望最终的结局，那时他们将穿过珍珠的门，永不再出去。”↩︎
参较本卷§ 50。↩︎
见查特里斯 (Charteris)《正典性》(Canonicity)，第336–357页所列的见证；另见吕克 (Lücke，第419–887页)、阿尔福德 (Alford，第iv卷，第198–229页)、李 (Lee，第405–442页) 及其他注释家。↩︎
这是图宾根 (Tübingen) 批判学派，以及欧洲大陆和英国同情该派者几乎一致的意见。↩︎
参较《启示录》1:10；《哥林多前书》14:15。除本节开头提到的参考文献外，还可参看魏斯博士 (Dr. Weiss) 的见证。他在《耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu，1882年)，第I卷，第97–101页中，出色地讨论了两卷书之间的差异，并得出结论：二者都出于同一位使徒约翰之手。他针对鲍尔博士 (Dr. Baur) 一项意味深长的让步说：“是的，第四福音书是‘属灵化的启示录’，但这不是因为第二世纪一位思想界的英雄接续了《启示录》的先见，而是因为《启示录》中那位雷子，在圣灵和神圣引导之下，已经成熟、蜕变为一位神秘主义者；他青春的烈焰已渐渐燃成圣爱的光热。”↩︎
绝大多数较早的注释家，以及近代的埃利奥特 (Elliott)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、兰格 (Lange)、霍夫曼 (Hofmann)、戈代 (Godet)、李 (Lee)、米利根 (Milligan) 和沃菲尔德 (Warfield，见沙弗《百科全书》〔Encycl.〕第III卷，第2035页) 都持此说。我本人从前也曾在《使徒教会史》(Hist. of the Ap. Church，1853年)，第418页及后，主张较晚的写作年代。↩︎
主张或接受较早年代的，有尼安德 (Neander)、吕克 (Lücke)、布莱克 (Bleek)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、德韦特 (DeWette)、鲍尔 (Baur)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck)、勒南 (Renan)、奥贝 (Aubé)、斯图亚特 (Stuart)、戴维森 (Davidson)、考尔斯 (Cowles)、莱特福特主教 (Bishop Lightfoot)、韦斯科特 (Westoott)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)、魏斯 (Weiss)；较早的作者中则有阿尔卡萨尔 (Alcasar)、格劳秀斯 (Grotius)、哈蒙德 (Hammond)、阿博齐 (Abauzit) 和约翰·莱特福特 (John Lightfoot)。↩︎
苏维托尼乌斯 (Suetonius)，《韦斯帕芗传》(Vespas.)，第1章：“Rebellione trium principum et caede incertum diu et quasi vagum imperium suscepit firmavitque tandem gens Flavia.”（“帝国因三位元首的叛乱与被杀而长期动荡，仿佛失去了归属，最终由弗拉维家族接掌并巩固。”）↩︎
布莱克 (Bleek，第121页)、吕克 (Lücke，第2版)、伯默 (Böhmer)、魏斯 (Weiss)、迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck，《导论》第55页及后，以及《启示录》13:3和17:7–14的注释) 持此说。↩︎
埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、鲍尔 (Baur) 等持此说。见下文附注。↩︎
参较第vi章，第376–402页，尤其是勒南 (Renan) 在《敌基督》(L’Antechrist) 第xiv章，第320–339页，对那些可怕岁月所作的极为生动的描述；若篇幅允许，我很愿意将其抄录于此。他所述的事实有异教和犹太人的见证充分支持，尤其是塔西佗 (Tacitus)、苏维托尼乌斯 (Suetonius)、斯特拉波 (Strabo)、普林尼 (Pliny)、约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 等人的见证。↩︎
见阿尔福德 (Alford)《注释》(Com.)，第iv卷，第245页及后；埃利奥特 (Elliott)，第4卷；Sam. 戴维森 (Sam. Davidson)《新约导论》(Introd. to the N. T.)，初版第III卷，第619页，修订版第II卷，第297页；以及李 (Lee)《注释》(Com.)，第488页。戴维森另加第四类“极端未来派”，以区别于一般的“未来派”；这一派把全书，包括《启示录》第2、3章，都归于末后的时期。李与吕克 (Lücke) 一样，以“历史派”一词取代“连续派”，但“历史派”更适用于第一类，即所谓“过去派”。李又增列“属灵体系”为第四种体系（第491页），并举奥古斯丁 (Augustin，他的《上帝之城》是第一部历史哲学著作)、J. C. K. 冯·霍夫曼 (J. C. K. von Hofmann)、亨斯滕贝格 (Hengstenberg)、奥伯伦 (Auberlen)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard) 为其主要辩护者。这与奥伯伦所谓的 reichsgeschichtliche Auslegung（国度史解释法）相同。↩︎
赫尔德 (Herder) 在其富有启发性的著作《主来临之书，新约的印记》(ΜΑΡΑΝ ΑΘΑ^*, das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des N. Testaments Siegel，里加，1779年) 中持此说。在这种反犹太的解释上，先于他的有日内瓦的阿博齐 (Abauzit，1730年)，他把本书定于尼禄在位期间；还有韦特施泰因 (Wetstein，1752年)。继其后者有哈特维希 (Hartwig，1780年) 和齐利希 (Züllig)。后者在一部论《启示录》的博学著作中（斯图加特，1834年，2卷，1840年），认为此书所指的完全是犹太国家。↩︎
α^* = 1，β^* = 2，ρ^* = 100，α^* = 1，ξ^* = 60，α^* = 1，ς^* = 200；合计365。现存大量刻有文字图像的宝石，称为“阿布拉克萨斯宝石” (Abraxas-gems)。阿布拉克萨斯 (Abraxas) 的起源通常被归于巴西利德 (Basilides) 或其追随者。↩︎
Ι^* = 10 + η^* = 8 + σ^* = 200 + ο^* = 70 + υ^* = 400 + ς^* = 200，合计 ἰησους^* = 888。参较巴拿巴《书信》(Ep.)，第9章；以及《西比拉书》(Sibylline Books)，I. 324–331。↩︎
福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 的理性主义荒谬之说，比这些虔诚的荒谬之说更有过之。他在《启示录注释》(Com. on the Apoc.，1862年)，第197页中，把臆想的约翰对保罗的敌意推到极端，竟将“假先知”（《启示录》16:13；19:20）解释为外邦人的使徒，因为保罗教导说（《罗马书》第13章），人人都当顺服当时在位的尼禄（即那兽）！甚至希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld，《导论》〔Einleit.〕，第436页) 和塞缪尔·戴维森 (Samuel Davidson，第I卷，第291页)，虽然赞同福尔克马尔的尼禄假说，也反对这种亵渎的胡言。↩︎
见李 (Lee)《注释》(Com.)，第687页。亚当·克拉克 (Adam Clarke) 认为这一论证无可反驳。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，v. 30，§§ 3、4。约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 出于对其庇护者——弗拉维王朝诸皇帝——的审慎顾虑，没有解释但以理异象中的第四兽和那从山上凿出来的石头。见《犹太古史》(Ant.)，x. 10，§ 4。哈弗坎普 (Havercamp) 对此评论道：“他此时不愿涉及未来之事，也不足为奇；因为他无意谈论那座被罗马人称为永恒之城的城市将遭毁灭，以免激怒他们。”↩︎
他们若再往前推，就会在与教皇权冲突的中世纪德意志帝国（所谓“神圣罗马帝国”）、拿破仑的帝国主义、俄国的沙皇制度、现代德意志帝国（反教皇的“文化斗争”〔Cultur-Kampf〕）中发现那敌基督的兽；实际上，任何敌视罗马教阶制度利益、又“不肯到卡诺莎去”的世俗政权，都被他们如此看待。这恰好与旧时新教的解释完全相反。↩︎
D = 500 + I = 1 + C = 100 + L = 50 + V = 5 + V = 5 = 666。↩︎
Kaisarsebaston 的数值为 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100 + 200 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 6 + 70 + 50，合计666。↩︎
见上引论文，第388页；以及约翰逊《百科全书》(Cyclopaedia) 中的《启示录》(Revelation) 条，第III卷，第1606页及后。↩︎

第十二章 新约

目录

§ 74. 文献

§ 75. 使徒文献的兴起

§ 76. 新约的特质

§ 77. 福音书研究文献

I. 福音书合参

II. 批判性讨论

III. 注释书

§ 78. 四福音书

福音书的一般性质与宗旨

共同的来源

各自的特色

成书时间

可信性

附注

§ 79. 对观福音书作者

对观福音问题

相互关系

一致与差异的数量估算

问题的解决

正典福音书彼此独立

使徒的教导是所有对观福音书作者的首要来源

书面文献

结论

传统的次序

公开的传统与内传的传统

附注

§ 80. 马太

批判研究

释经著作

马太的生平

福音书的特性与宗旨

按主题编排

特有的段落

文体

教父关于马太的记载

希伯来文《马太福音》

希腊文《马太福音》

§ 81. 马可

注释书

马可的生平

他与彼得的关系

福音书

《马可福音》的特征与宗旨

教义立场

文体

富有特色的细节

结论

福音书的完整性

关于《马可福音》16:9–20争议结尾的附注

§ 82. 路加

批评与传记研究

释经著作

路加的生平

资料来源

献书对象与写作目的

《路加福音》的内容

《路加福音》的特色

文体

真正性157

可信性

写作时间

写作地点

§ 83. 约翰

约翰与对观福音书作者

写作契机

目的

内容分析

第四福音书的特征

约翰与对观福音书所记基督的讲论

《约翰福音》的文体

作者

结论

§ 84. 约翰著作问题的批判性考察

问题的提出

对第四福音书的攻击

为第四福音书辩护

反对约翰著作权理论的困难

§ 85. 使徒行传

第十二章新约

真正性¹⁵⁷