narrative portions are due to another hand. But in one of the latest works on the subject, Dr. Drummond ascribes the whole book to the Apostle and meets the adverse views of recent criticism with masterly replies. Even if the final verdict should be to ascribe the literary form of the work to John the Elder or some unknown scholar at Ephesus, the growing consensus of opinion is toward assigning the substance of it to St. John himself.
The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment of the Acts of the Apostles. The "Tübingen School," represented in this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St. Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism. That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the primitive character of the first half – especially as illustrated by the speeches of St. Peter and others,46 and later by the collection of many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book, namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay – the greatest living authority on the antiquities and history of Asia Minor in the first century – that many local and contemporary facts have been brought to light confirmatory of the accuracy of St. Luke as a historian.47
With regard to St. Paul's epistles the case stands thus: A few extremists reject them all, partly on the ground of their supposed inconsistency with the Acts– thus reversing Zeller's argument, but mainly because of the advanced condition of Christian experience which they illustrate, as though the pace of spiritual development in the white heat of the greatest religious "revival" the world has ever seen could be measured by the ideas of a Dutch professor in his chill lecture room! But the mass of critical opinion – British, German, and American – is tending toward a wider recognition of the genuineness of these writings than was allowed a generation ago. Baur's admittedly authentic group of four, which has been called "the great quadrilateral of Christianity," still stands – viz., 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Next come Philippians and I Thessalonians now accepted as virtually beyond question. Then Colossians has been vindicated in schools of severe criticism.48 If Colossians is allowed, there can be no doubt as to receiving its companion epistle, the beautiful little letter to Philemon. There are still many who are unable to admit 2 Thessalonians, chiefly because of its apocalyptic contents. But of late years it has been shown that the primitive church was possessed with the hope of the coming of Christ in glory to a remarkable extent, as a perfectly dominating idea. There remains Ephesians as now the most questioned of all the epistles that bear the name of St. Paul, except the Pastorals. But when it is seen that one of the chief objections to it is that it is said to be "a weak" (!) imitation of Colossians we may be allowed to regard this judgment as a matter of personal taste rather than a decision of objective criticism. Luther does not stand alone in holding this epistle to be one of the choicest books of the New Testament.
The question of the Pastoral Epistles must be considered as still one meeting with doubtful answers. Many scholars who accept all the ten epistles of St. Paul to the Churches agree with Marcion of the second century in not admitting these three works. Still they are defended by most British and American New Testament49 scholars, and some who do not allow that in their present form they can be attributed to the Apostle still admit that they contain fragments of the Apostle's genuine writings.50
The Epistle to the Hebrews is now universally admitted not to be a work of St. Paul. The book itself makes no claim to be such, and it is unfortunate that the English Revisers retained the misleading title ascribing it to "Paul the Apostle," a late superscription of no historical value. Happily the American Revisers have struck this out. Claims for Barnabas and for Apollos as its author have their advocates; and lately Prof. Harnach has hit on the happy guess, backed up by considerations of some amount of probability, that its author was a woman – Priscilla. But most scholars feel it necessary to abide by Origen's negative conclusion: "Who wrote the epistle God only knows." That it is a most valuable work of high inspiration well worthy of a place in the canon in spite of its anonymity cannot be doubted. It has recently received special attention from scholars in the form of fresh and luminous exposition.51
I Peter has been somewhat severely handled in recent times, Harnach regarding it as the work of some unknown disciple of St. Paul. But the growing perception of a rapprochement between the two great Apostles, which is seen in recent scholarship, points to the conclusion that St. Peter, who was evidently a man of a most impressionable nature, may not have felt himself above receiving influences from the great Apostle of the Gentiles; and it is not to be denied that there are features of the epistle which link it more closely with St. Peter's speeches in Acts than with the writings of St. Paul. On the other hand 2 Peter is the one book of the New Testament now almost universally treated as not genuine; it was the latest to be accepted in the primitive church.52
James is regarded as a genuine work of the head of the Church at Jerusalem by its chief English commentator,53 although most German and American scholars who have written about it recently assign it to a very late date.54
The Epistles of John are now almost universally admitted to be the work of the author of the fourth gospel. Little can be said as to the Epistle of Jude except that its free use of Apocryphal books has been clearly demonstrated. But, lastly, a flood of light has been thrown on the Revelation by recent studies in Jewish Apocalyptic literature, and even in Babylonian mythology.55 It has been shown that this mysterious book, which many had regarded as unique in literature, may be associated with a school of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic writings from some of the former of which it draws its materials. Then, as the inquiry is pushed further back, some of the most remarkable imagery is traced through these Jewish writings to Babylonian legends. While this interesting process may help to account for the form of the book, it does not touch its essence and that marvelous inspiration by virtue of which it soars above all possible rivals and it is to us the Apocalypt, the one book in which the Spirit of God unveils the springs and purposes of the providence of history.
During recent years the methods of the commentator have undergone almost as great a revolution as those of the critic. New dictionaries and grammars56 have helped to a more accurate understanding of words and phrases. But the most remarkable contribution to this form of study comes from a wholly new region, the region of contemporary records. Inscriptions in Greece and Asia Minor and Papyri discovered in Egypt, dating from the very time when the New Testament was written, are found to contain phrases identical with what we had been accustomed to regard as peculiarly characteristic of Hellenistic or New Testament Greek. The conclusion to be drawn from these remarkable discoveries is that the books of the New Testament were written in the ordinary spoken Greek of their day, the very same form of language in which leases were drawn up and private letters were written by people at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, in which inscriptions were chiseled by sculptors in Cos among the isles of Greece. From this we are led to see the mistake of the old commentators in interpreting the New Testament by means of their knowledge of the classics. The consequence is that the Revised Version must be regarded as already partially out of date, since its committees were dominated by English university classical scholarship, as represented by Dr. Ellicott, the chairman of the English committee.
Another modern movement of research also carries us away from the old classicism. While the New Testament writers used the colloquial language of the cosmopolitan
See Lechler,
See Ramsay,
By Von Soden and Jülicher, although some interpolations are allowed. Even Pfleiderer admitted that it contained fragments of St. Paul's genuine writings, after Hilgenfeld had followed his leader Baur in rejecting it altogether. Lightfoot, T. K. Abbott, Zahn, and Sanday all defend its claims.
Not by Davidson, however, nor more recently by Bacon or Moffatt. Dr. Horton (
This is Harnach's view. On the other hand so independent a scholar and drastic a critic as Mr. Conybeare told the present writer that he had no doubt of their genuineness.
Especially by Menégoz, Bruce, and Milligan.
Still it is vindicated by Dr. Bigg,
J. B. Mayor,
As expounded by Gunkel, Bousset, and Charles.
