period before the spring of A.D. 54, S. Paul had been "fighting with beasts at Ephesus:" even on his first arrival in Macedonia, the Christians are described as persons of TV оíkovμévηv ávασTaTwσavTes, Acts xvii. 6: see also Acts xx. 19. So far, it is conceivable that S. Peter may have sent this epistle from Rome, about the year 54 or 55, to the Asiatic churches, by the hands of Silvanus, as a person who was well known to them. But on the other hand, it is equally conceivable that the epistle was sent at a later date. At what time S. Peter returned to Rome we are not informed. He seems not to have been there at the beginning of S. Paul's imprisonment, i. e. in 56 A.D. If ecclesiastical writers give the true date of S. Mark's martyrdom in assigning it to the 8th year of Nero, which began 13 Oct. A.D. 61, it would follow that the first epistle cannot have been written later than A.d. 62.

The epistle is addressed to the churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Now, it does not appear that any churches were founded by S. Paul himself in Pontus and Bithynia before his first imprisonment, A. D. 55. On this account it seems likely that this epistle belongs to the latter part of the period which has been defined. And as S. Paul would in all probability have been mentioned by name if it was written from Rome while he was there, we may perhaps infer that it was written after the termination of the first imprisonment, i. e. after A.D. 58.

$139. The genuineness of the Second Epistle has often been called in question, but on very insufficient grounds'. If it be not S. Peter's, it is an imposture, for it openly pretends to be from him. But if it were an imposture, it would surely betray itself by more palpable marks of fraud than any which have been alleged (e. g. by Neander Pf. u. Leit. p. 455). The principal objection, the diversity of style between this and the other epistle, is sufficiently answered by the consideration of the scope and character of this epistle. It is like that of S. Jude, and in part like the Epistles to Timothy, and that of S. James, prophetical or apocalyptic. As such, it is the result of a different kind of inspiration, which the writer himself has described

1 The reader who desires to see this question fully discussed, is referred to

Olshausen, Opuscula Theologica, 1834. p. 1-88.

i. 21. in the words ὑπὸ Πνεύματος αγίου φερόμενοι. The same consideration sufficiently explains the difference of style between the Apocalypse and the other writings of S. John. If the illustration may be permitted, the difference is of the same sort as would appear in the poems and the correspondence of the same writer. The objection which is derived from the use made in this epistle of the very words of S. Jude, is of no moment: the Old Testament prophets, it is well known, cite the very words of their predecessors; nay, the writer himself sufficiently intimates that he is enlarging upon the text of some other inspired man: iii. 1, 2.

Admitting, then, the genuineness, we must assign this epistle to the year 65 a. D. just before S. Peter's martyrdom.

(III.) THE EPISTLES OF S. JAMES AND S. JUDE.

140. James, "the brother of the Lord," not originally one of the twelve, nor the James son of Alphæus who is enumerated in the catalogues, became bishop of Jerusalem after the martyrdom of James son of Zebedee. In this office he continued till his martyrdom in A. D. 61, or, at latest, 62, when the high priest Ananus availed himself of the interval between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus to put him to death. Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 1. (See above p. 125). How long a time before the martyrdom this epistle was written we are not informed. Its denunciation of impending woe inclines to refer it to one of the last years of the Apostle's life.

141. "Jude, the brother of James," was one of the adeλpoi of the Lord, therefore not originally one of the twelve, and not the same with the Judas, Lebbæus or Thaddeus of the catalogues, with whom he is often confounded by ecclesiastical writers. It seems to me that his epistle was written before the second of S. Peter. See Olshausen, Opusc. Theol. p. 56.

$142. 142. For the sake of completeness, it seems desirable to annex to this section a short inquiry into the dates of the composition of the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of S. John. What I have to say concerning

the Apocalypse must be reserved for a later occasion, inasmuch as some of the arguments to be alleged will want their full force unless taken in connexion with matters, not yet explained, concerning prophecy in general, and "the Economy of Times and Seasons."

The testimony of the ancients is very full and express, that the four gospels were delivered to the Church in the order in which they now stand. Mr. Greswell sums up the evidence in these words: "with one exception only......(the ancient fathers, as) Papias, Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tertullian, the Latin Presbyter Caius, Pantænus, Origen, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and a multitude of others, do all either actually or implicitly affirm that the gospels were written in the order in which they stand." Diss. i. 67. The exception is the author of the Hypotyposes, who, as reported by Eusebius, affirms (ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων) that the gospels which contain the genealogies were the first written.Modern critics since Griesbach (Opusc. ii. p. 358.) have generally concurred with this latter view.

THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW.

§ 143. THAT this gospel was originally composed in Hebrew, i. e. in the dialect of Palestine (Aramaïc or Syrochaldee), for the use of the churches of the Jewish Christians, is unanimously and unequivocally affirmed by the voice of all antiquity, and seems never to have been called in question until Erasmus and Beza first maintained the contrary. As the fact is a matter of considerable importance for the determination of the time at which this gospel was written, and also of its relation to the gospels of Mark and Luke,—which, again, is of moment towards the formation of a chronological harmony of our Saviour's Ministry-it will not be irrelevant to the direct scope of this work to state the evidence of the fact, and to answer the objections which have been raised against it1.

(1.) The earliest extant testimony is that of Papias, Euseb. H. E. iii. 19. (Rell. Sacc. i. 13.), resting on the tradition of

The following statement of the evidence is taken from Meyer, Krit. Ereg. Komment. in das N. T. Matth. Einleit.

men contemporary with the apostles, Aristion and John the Presbyter. Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Εβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσε δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δύνατος ἕκαστος. It is useless to attempt to invalidate this clear and conspicuous testimony by alleging that Eusebius himself, in the same chapter, describes its author as a very feeble-minded man, (πάνυ σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν φαίνεται.) Grant that he were such, yet he is an honest witness, and perfectly competent to attest a simple matter of fact. Nor does Eusebius apply this censure to Papias's testimony as to this matter: his object is to take off the edge of the testimony born by this very ancient writer to the doctrine of Christ's Second Advent and reign on earth.

(2.) S. Irenæus adv. Hær. iii. 1. Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς ̔Εβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, του Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγ γελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ̓Εκκλησίαν.—Το this testimony it is objected, that Irenæus does but repeat the saying of Papias; that the testimony is not independent. Now certainly Irenæus was well acquainted with the writings of Papias, whom, as the companion of S. Polycarp, he held in high esteem: but that he merely echoes the statement of his predecessor is as unproved an assertion, as that the statement itself is unworthy of credit. Besides, it is extremely improbable that Papias, singly, should be the founder of a tradition so generally received as this is.

(3.) The next testimony is altogether independent of the authority of Papias. Namely, of Pantanus the following story is related by Eusebius, Η. Ε. v. 10. Ὁ Πάνταινος καὶ εἰς Ινδοὺς ἐλθεῖν λέγεται· “Ενθα λόγος εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν προφθάσαν τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον παρά τισιν αὐτόθι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπεγνωκόσιν οἷς Βαρθολομαῖον τῶν Ἀποστόλων ἕνα κηρύξαι, αὐτοῖς το ̔Εβραίων γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου καταλείψαι γραφὴν,

It is not indeed recorded whether the Hebrew gospel left by S. Bartholomew were a Hebrew original or a translation from the Greek. But the ancients breathe not a syllable of a Hebrew version made from the Greek, and if Eusebius, who himself, as we shall presently see, is express for a Hebrew original, had understood the story to relate to a Hebrew translation, he would doubtless have expressed the matter

66

more distinctly. The same remark applies to the passage of S. Jerome, de Vir. Eccl. 36. Reperit (Pantænus) Bartholomæum de xii Apostolis adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi juxta Matthæi evangelium prædicasse, quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit."

(4.) To the same effect is the testimony of the father of scriptural criticism, the acute and learned Origen: ap. Eus. I. E. vi. 25. ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τὸν ποτὲ τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον 1. Χ. Ματθαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασι γράμμασιν Εβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον. The assertion rests on tradition (ἐν παραδόσει μαθών) i. e. on the received ecclesiastical tradition, the declaration of the Church and its teachers from the beginning, for that was the meaning of the word παράδοσις when Origen wrote. And, let it be observed, Origen had not a thought of controverting the tradition.

66

ων

(5.) Eusebius himself, H. E. iii. 24. Ματθαῖος πρότερον Εβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἔμελλε καὶ ἐφ' ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττη γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις ἀφ ̓ ὧν ἐστέλλετο διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου.— But Eusebius relates this merely as an historian: his own opinion as a critic was opposed to it; this is proved by what he says as a commentator upon Psa. lxxviii. 2. ἀντὶ τοῦ, ‘φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ̔Εβραῖος ὤν ὁ Μ. οἰκείᾳ ἐκδόσει κέχρηται, εἰπών· ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς. For the οἰκεία ἔκδοσις must mean Matthew's own translation' of the Hebrew passage of the Psalm.”Quite the contrary: ἔκδοσις is not ‘translation, but 'edition'; oikeia not own,' but that of his own country.' What Eusebius says is, that Matthew "used the edition of his own country," i. e. he gave the words in Hebrew as he found them. Besides, if ἔκδοσις must needs mean transla tion, οἰκεία ἔκδοσις will mean a translation into Aramaic.

(6.) S. Jerome, Prof. in Matt. Matthæus in Judæa evangelium Hebræo sermone edidit ob eorum vel maxime causam qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judæis, and de vir. eccl. 3. Matthæus, qui et Levi, ex publicano Apostolus, primus in Judæa propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque composuit, quod quis postea in Græcum transtulerit non satis certum est.