PART II.—THE EARLIER APOSTOLIC LITERARY INTRODUCTION WHEN we pass beyond the teaching of Jesus and enter upon that of the early Church, we are no longer worried by problems of eschatology and ipsissima verba, but we find ourselves beset by other difficulties no less formidable, those, viz., which arise from the almost endless diversity of scholarly opinion as to the date and origin of the books of the New Testament. The difficulties are, for our present purpose, less acute than they would otherwise be, by reason of the broad chronological divisions in which the subject is here treated. This arrangement relieves us of the necessity of arriving at a decision on a large number of the literary problems referred to. It will suffice to enumerate briefly the documents of our period, and to add a word or two on their most striking characteristics. It might seem at first sight that the Jewish Christianity of Palestine was of sufficient distinctness and importance to deserve to be treated altogether separately from that of the mixed Jewish and gentile churches in other Mediterranean lands. But, in view of the state of our sources, it seems undoubtedly better to treat the Christianity of the age, broadly speaking, as a unity. It is not possible to make a clear division of the documents into JewishPalestinian and Catholic. Our authorities for the former virtually reduce themselves to the few early chapters of Acts. While a large body of critical opinion assigns the 'Epistle of Jacob' to the bishop of Jerusalem of that name, the brother of Jesus, thus making it an authority for Judaistic Christianity in Palestine before 70 A.D., we are also told on good authority that the author was "trained in Hellenistic Judaism," that "there is no reference in the Epistle which necessarily involves the Jewish Christian character of the readers," and that its probable date is early in the second century. I have preferred to adopt the later date; and have not felt able to regard the Epistle as an exclusively Jewish1 Moffatt INT 463, 465, 470f. Christian document.1 In the case of 'Hebrews,' even though we may feel sure that it was sent to Jewish, and not gentile, Christians,2 yet the authorship, place of writing, destination, and date remain. uncertain. At all events there is nothing to connect the Epistle with Palestine: it seems to me most likely that it was written by Barnabas from Rome to Alexandria.3 In regard to date, I see no. reason for putting it later than 70 A.D. It will be seen from this brief survey that the really reliable authorities for early Jewish Christianity in Palestine are extremely scanty,5 and that it is virtually impossible to mark them off sharply from those that tell us of the wider Christianity among the Jews of the Diaspora and the gentiles. By keeping an eye on the footnotes, the reader will be able to judge for himself how far the results built up in the text are composed of materials drawn from more or less definitely Jewish-Christian sources. Another group of writings that might have been thought to claim separate treatment consists of the narratives and correspondence of Paul. He is, undoubtedly, in a real sense one by himself. As the apostle of the gentiles par excellence, he was the first to face in a big way the new problems to which the extension of Christianity throughout the Empire was giving rise; and the answers he gave to them are of the very highest significance. But even in his case, the advantages to be gained by merging his contribution in the general picture of the Christianity of his time seem to outweigh those that would be gained by treating him separately. His own striking characteristics are not likely to be lost sight of, when we consider what much larger materials we have for reconstructing his teaching than we have for that of all his Christian contemporaries put together. And his writings-while they bear many marks of his originality—yet reflect also in very large measure 1 See below, p. 140. 2 Peake 12-16; per contra, Moffatt INT 432, 443–451. The points are discussed in Peake 22-38; Moffatt INT 435-448. Cf. Expository Times, Sept. 1922, 536–539. I cannot at all understand the tendency of several recent critics, who date the Epistle some years after 64 A.D., to agree on Rome as the place to which it was sent I should have thought H xii. 4 was quite decisive against such a conclusion. Cf. Peake 40; Moffatt INT 451ff. I have not made any use in this section of the hypothetical document known as The Two Ways and supposed to be embedded in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas (Harnack C i. 436f; Krüger 66f). Apart from the doubts as to its existence-Funk (PA ix.-xi.) and Bardenhewer (20) deny it, and other scholars posit an oral catechism instead of a written document-it is at most a Jewish work, which was adopted and adapted for Christian purposes at an altogether unknown date. It cannot, therefore, be appealed to with confidence as a source for Jewish Christian teaching prior to 70 A.D. In its Christian dress, it will come up for examination in the ensuing period, See below, p. 139. the normal Christian sentiments of the time. It is a great advantage, in other respects, to be able to dispense with a subdivision of our period on local, sectional, and personal grounds. The usual crop of literary difficulties faces us when we undertake a complete study of Paul from any point of view. Fortunately, much of the material is by general consent quite reliable. The personal friendship and association between Paul and Luke may be held to guarantee, in the main, the latter's reports in regard to the words, as well as the deeds, of his master. Of the Epistles, only Ephesians and the Pastorals are open to serious suspicion. There is not much difficulty over the former; for its teaching is strikingly similar to that of Colossians, and, inasmuch as the terminus a quo for its date is the date of Colossians,1 it may be included in our present period without serious risk of dislocating our evidence. The case of the Pastorals is less simple: for while on the one hand they are admitted to contain genuine Pauline matter, on the other hand a very strong case can be made out for denying that the apostle was the author of them in their present form. The point is of importance, as they contain a little material bearing very directly on our subject.2 Here again, by taking advantage of the fact that, even on the nonPauline theory, the terminus a quo for the composition of the Pastorals is the death of Paul,3 which happened at least six and probably nine years before 70 A.D., we may evade the responsibility of making a final choice as to the authorship and exact date, and still take the Pastorals in this period. By noticing their evidence on the more central topics when dealing with the next period, the danger of a serious anachronism may be averted. The other Christian sources for the present period are the (so-called first) Epistle of Peter and the Gospel of Mark. In regard to the former of these, the traditional view of the date-between 64 and 70 A.D. (preferably 65 A.D.)-still seems to pass muster, while the objections to regarding Peter as the author can be fairly met by assigning to the apostle's amanuensis Silvanus a certain share in the task of literary composition.5 The Gospel of Mark is by no means immune from the usual swarm of critical theories as to sources and recensions; yet the authorities are in large 2 See below, pp. 110f, 177f n 11, 180. 1 Moffatt INT 395. 3 Moffatt INT 416. 319 n. Moffatt INT 323, 325. For another view, see Ramsay CRE 279-288, 1 P v. 12: Moffatt INT 331-335. 2 measure agreed that its date is not later than 70 A.D.1 Its place of composition, like that of Peter's letter,3 was probably Rome. Little apology need be made for using in this period a Gospel already so largely drawn upon as a source of information for the life and teaching of Jesus. The Gospels were written with an eye to the needs and interests of the author's contemporaries, as well as to the facts to be recorded, and shed therefore often as much, sometimes more, light on the period of their own composition than on that which they profess to describe. At the same time, the striking objectivity of Mark's narrative, his well-testified dependence on Peter,5 the theological-rather than ethical-character of his own special contribution to his story, and lastly the fact that his material, having already been analysed in detail for the teaching of Jesus, can be to a large extent taken as presupposed in our study of the following period, as present to the mind and so not needing repetition-all these considerations combine to render his work much less pertinent and direct as a source for the period now before us than are the other documents we have mentioned. Our list of authorities closes with two or three incidental allusions to the Christians of this period in the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and in a few Christian authors quoted by Eusebius. CHAPTER I THE WORLD AND THE CHURCH THE EVIL STATE OF THE WORLD.-The normal Christian view of the human race outside the bounds of the Christian brotherhoodapart from certain Pauline qualifications—was that it was totally bad. Peter speaks of "this crooked generation," Paul of " the present evil age." 8 Noah condemning the world appears as a type of faith. A whole host of damning epithets is applied to the pre 1 Moffatt INT 212f; Swete M xl.; Harnack DA 133. 2 Moffatt INT 236f; Swete M xxxix.; Harnack 1.c. 3 1 P v. 13: Moffatt INT 327f. 4 πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, as Papias (? on the authority of John the Elder) says of the discourses of Peter, which Mark used as his source (Eus. HE III. xxxix. 15). Cf. Menzies 4-19. 5 Swete M xxiii-xxvi. 6 E.g. his Paulinism—such as it is, Moffatt INT 233-236; Menzies 38f: cf. Swete M xc.-XCV. 7 Ac ii. 40. * H xi. 7. 8 Gi. 4; cf. E v. 16. Cf. Weinel Th. 474, 476f. Christian or un christian state of man.1 While the sense of the suffering of mankind was not altogether lost, it was very largely overlaid by the recognition of the more fundamental fact of sin, to which mankind as a whole was regarded as subject.3 Paul's treatment of the subject of human sin is characterized by the distinction he draws between Jews and gentiles, and by his recognition of a certain enlightenment granted in different ways to both. He speaks of gentiles as ipso facto sinners, and describes their pre-Christian or unchristian state as sinful; 5 they had not pursued righteousness, but had been slaves of sin,' dead in trespasses and sins, disobedient to God," estranged and hostile to Him in evil works.10 Their very children were unpurified.11 Their unrighteousness displayed itself in the lustfulness of their lives.12 Their position is characterized as one of hopelessness, 13 futility,14 blindness, 15 darkness,16 folly,17 and ignorance,18 particularly in regard to the character of God and the true method of worshipping Him.19 Hence arose not only that moral blindness which betrayed them into degrading sensuality, 20 but also their foolish polytheism and idolatry.2 21 As for the Jews, the fact that they were the recipients of a Divinely-given Law introduces certain modifications into their " " 1r Pi. 14, 18, ii. Io, 25 (cf. Mc vi. 34), iii. 18, iv. 3 (dpker`s nào ở TapeAnAuDis χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οινοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, ποτοις, καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις). Ramsay (CRE 288) quotes i P v. 8 as a step towards the strongly developed idea of the world found in the Johannine writings: cf. Dobschütz 178f. For the views of Paul on the sinfulness of men generally, see 2 Th ii. 10, 1 C i. 20, ii. 6–8, iii. 18f, vi. 9-11, 2 C iv. 3f (τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων, κτλ.), R xii. 2, Ε ii. If (καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, ἐν αἷς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κτλ.), Tii. 12. Cf. also H vi. 1, ix. 14 (though Peake (141f) says these phrases refer to the vain external works of legalism, not to sins). 2 Ac iii. 20: and cf. the place given to works of healing and to the duties of mercy and almsgiving. 3 So several of the passages quoted in the last two notes: cf. also Heges. ap. Eus. HE II. xxiii. 6 (Jacob's habit of praying in the Temple for the forgiveness of the people); R v. 12, 18f, xi. 32. 4 G ii. 15. •R ix. 30. 7 R vi. 17f. R xi. 30, (C iii. 6), E ii. 2, v. 6. I C xv. 17; cf. 2 C vi. 14. 11 I C vii. 14. 12 1 Thiv. 5, 1 C vi. 9–11 (cf. 1), R i. 26–32, vi. 19, 21, C iii. 5–7, 9 (cf. 1 Č v. 1-8), E ii. 3, iv. 19, 22. 13 1 Th iv. 13, E ii. 12. 14 Ac xiv. 15; 1 C iii. 20, xv. 17, R i. 21, E iv. 17. 15 2 C iv. 4; cf. R ii. 19. 16 I Th v. 4f, R i. 21 (cf. ii. 19), C i. 13, E iv. 18, v. 8, 11. 17 1 C iii. 19, R i. 22. 18 E iv. 18. 10 1 Th iv. 5 (τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν); Ac xvii. 23 (ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ); 1 Cii. 8, Ri. 18-23, E ii. 12 (ã0εoɩ év тŵ Kóoμw). 20 Ri. 18-32. 21 Ac xiv. 15ff, xvii. 15, 24f, 29f; G iv. 8, 1 Th i. 9, 1 C xii. 2. |