« PreviousContinue »
struck by the fact that neither the Western can be shown to be true that some readings found in both texts seem to have little prob-
of Codex Vaticanus it is plain that its archetype had the Pauline Boussel und Schmidtke.—These two scholars have done much epistles in a peculiar order which is only found in Egypt, and so work in trying to identify smaller groups of MSS. with local texts. far no one has been able to discover any non-Alexandrian writer Bousset has argued that the readings in the Pauline cpistles found ! who used the Neutral text. Moreover, Barnard's researches into in * Hand a few minuscules represent the text used by Pamphilus, the Biblical text of Clement of Alexandria show that there is reason and on the whole this view seems to be highly probable. Another to doubt whether even in Alexandria the Neutral text was used group which Bousset has tried to identify is that headed by B, in the earlicst times. We have no evidence earlier than Clement, which he connects with the recension of Hesychius, but this theory, and the text of the New Testament which he quotes has niore in though widely accepted in Germany, does not seem to rest on a very common with the Old Latin or
geographically Western " text solid basis. To some extent influenced by and using. Bousset's than with the Neutral, though it definitely agrees with no known results, Schmidtke has tried to show that certain small lines in the type preserved in MSS. or versions. This discovery has put the margin of B point to a connexion between that MS. and a Gospel Neutral text in a different light. It would seem as though we could harmony, which, by assuming that the text of B is Hesychian, he roughly divide the history of the text in Alexandria into three identifies with that of Ammonius. Is true, this is exceedingly im- periods. The earliest is that which is represented by the quotations portant. Nestle, however, and other scholars think that the lines in Clement, and must have been in use in Alexandria at the end of in B are merely indications of a division of the text into sense- the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century. It is unfortunately paragraphs and have nothing to do with any harmony:
not found in any extant MS. The second stage is that found in the Rendel Harris and Chase. -Two investigations, which attracted quotations of Origen which is fairly well represented in * B, though much notice when they were published, tried to explain the pheno- Origen seems at times to have used MSS. of the carlier type.
The time has not yet come when any final attempt can be made problem.
that still more important, though unfortunately much less complete, of WH may be summed up into two theorems (1) The text pre- is the evidence of the versions and of quotations by early writers. served in the later MSS. is not primitive, but built up out of earlier Both of these point to the existence in the 3rd and even and century texts; (2) these earlier texts may be classified as Western, Alexe of types of text which differ in very many points from anything andrian and Neutral, of which the Neutral is the primitive form. preserved in Greek MSS. Yet there is no doubt that both of them The former of these theorems has been generally accepted and may ultimately represent Greek MSS. which are no longer extant. The be taken as proved, but the second has been closely criticized and question, therefore, is whether we ought not to base our text on the probably must be modihed. It has been approached from two sides, versions and ecclesiastical quotations rather than on the extant according as critics have considered the Western or the Neutral and Greek MSS. Two positions are possible: (1) We may defend a Alexandrian texts.
text based on the best existing Greek MSS. by the argument that The Western Text.—This was regarded by WH as a definite text, these represent the text which was approved by competent judges found in D, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac; and it is an essential in the 4th century, and would be found to cxist in earlier MSS. if part of their theory that in the main these three witnesses represent we possessed them. The weak point of this argument is the lack one text. On the evidence which they had WH were undoubtedly of evidence in support of the second part. The only possible sources justified, but discoveries and investigation have gone far to make it of evidence, apart from the discovery of fresh MSS., are the versions, impossible to hold this view any longer. We now know more about and they do not point to existence in the 2nd or 3rd century of the Old Latin, and,
thanks to Mrs Lewis' discovery, much more about texts agreeing with the great uncials. It is also possible to argue, the Old Syriac. The result is that the authorities on which WH as WH did, on the same side, that the purest form of text was prerelied for their Western text are seen to bear witness to two texts, served in Alexandria, from which the oldest uncials are directly or not to one. The Old Lacin, if we take the African form as the indirectly derived, but this argument has been weakened if not oldest, as compared with the Neutral text has a series of inter- finally disposed of by the evidence of Clement of Alexandria. polations and a series of omissions. The Old Syriac, if we take is, of course, conceivable that Clement merely used bad MSS., and the Sinaitic MS. as the purest form, compared in the same way, that there were other MSS. which he might have used, agreeing has a similar double series of interpolations and omissions, but with the great uncials, but there is no evidence for this view. neither the omissions nor the interpolations are the same in the If we reject this position we must accept the evidence as giving Old Latin as in the Old Syriac. Such a line of research suggests the great uncials much the same secondary importance as Westcott that instead of being able, as WH thought, to set the Western and Hort gave to the later MSS., and make an attempt to reconstruct against the Neutral text (the Alexandrian being merely a develop a text on the basis of versions and Fathers. The adoption of this ment of the latter), we must consider the problem as the comparison view sets textual critics a peculiarly ult task. of at least three texts, a Western (geographically), an Eastern and in their work must be the establishment of the earliest form of each the Neutral. This makes the matter much more difficult; and an version, and the collection and examination of the quotations in answer is demanded to the problem afforded by the agreement of all the early writers. This has not yet been done, but enough has two of these texts against the third. The obvious solution would been accomplished to point to the probability that the result will be to say that where two agree their reading is probably correct,
be the establishment of at least three main types of texts, reprebut the followers of WH maintain that the agreement of the Western sented by the Old Syriac, the Old Latin and Clement's quotations, and Eastern is often an agreement in error. It is difficult to see while it is doubtful how far Tatian's Diatessaron, the quotations in how texts, geographically so wide apart as the Old Latin and Old Justin and a few other sources may be used to reconstruct the type Syriac would seem to be, are likely to agree in error, but it is certainly of Greek text used in Rome in the 2nd century when Rome was still
primarily, a Greek church. The second stage must be the com- should be transferred by the Reformed Churches to the Bible parison of these results and the attempt to reconstruct from them
“The Bible, the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants": a Greek text from which they all arose. BIBLIOGRAPHY.— The literature of textual criticism of the New really express the watchword of the anti-Romanist parties
, Testament is so great that only a few of the more important modern especially towards the close of the acuter struggle. At the books can be mentioned here: H. von Soden, Die Schriften des beginning of the movement the New Testament itself had been Neuen Testaments (i. 1902-1907); E. Nestle, Einführung in das frcely criticized. Luther, like his countrymen of to-day, judged griechische Neue Testament (Göttingen, 1909); F. G. Kenyon, the contents of the New Testament by the light of his leading Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, convictions; and in his German translation, which occupies 1900-1902), and Die griech. Handschr. des N.T. (Leipzig, 1908); the same place in Germany as the Authorized Version of 1011 Westcott and Hort, Introduction (vol. ii. of their New Testament does in English-speaking lands, he even placed four oi the in Grcek, Cambridge, 1882), The history of criticism is dealt with books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Apocalypse) in an appendix at the in all the above-mentioned books, and also in F. H. Scrivener, end, with prefaces explanatory of this drastic act of criticisa. Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1894). For other points especially important (besides books men- But though we may trace a real affiliation between the principis tioned in the preceding section) 'see F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum of Luther and modern German critical study-notably in the (Göttingen, 1895; and an editio minor, with a valuable preface, doctrines of the Gospel within the Gospel and of the residual Leipzig. 1896);" Rendel Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Tex! Essence of Christianity-Luther's discriminations were in the (Cambridge, 1894); F. Chase, The Syro-Latin Text (London, 1895); W. Bousset, Textkritische Studien (Leipzig, 1894); B. Weiss, Der 17th century ignored in practice. Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig, 1897); A. Pott, Der From cover to cover the whole New Testament was regarded abendländische Text d. A postelgeschichte Leipzig, 1900); G. Salmon, at the beginning of the 18th century by almost all Protestants 1897): Schmidtke, Die Evangelien eines alien Unsialcodex (Leipzig: as the infallible revelation of the true religion. The 1903).
doctrines of Christianity, and in many communities leende
the customs of the Church, were held to be inferences criticise. 4. Higher Criticism.
from the inspired text of the Scriptures. The first The New Testament is a series of early Christian writings serious blow to this view came from the study of textual criticism, which the Church came to regard as canonical, i.e. they were The editions of Mill (1707) and of Wetstein (1751) proved once placed in the same category as thc Old Testament, the writings for all that variations in the text, many of them scrious, bad which the Christian had inherited from the Jewish Church. existed from the earliest times. It was evident, therefore, that Just as the ancient Scriptures were considered to be the Word the true authority of the New Testament could not be that of a of God, so that what they contained was necessarily the true legal code which is definite in all its parts. More important still and inspired doctrine, so also the New Testament was available was the growing perception of the general uniformity of nature, for proving the Church's dogma. The assured canonicity of the which had forced itself with increasing insistence upon Dea's whole New Testament resulted in its usc by the medieval theo- minds as the study of the natural sciences progressed in the logians, the Schoolmen, as a storehouse of proof-texts. Thus 17th and 18th centuries. The miracles of the New Testament, the New Testament scemed to exist in order to prove the Church's which had formerly been received as bulwarks of Christianity, conclusions, not to tell its own tale.
now appeared as difficulties needing explanation. Furthermore, The Nouum Instrumentum published by Erasmus in 1516 the prevailing philosophies of the 18th century tended to demand (see above, Texlual Criticism) contained more than the mere that a rcal divine revelation should be one which expressed Erasmus.
Editio Princeps of the Greek text: Erasmus accom- itself in a form convincing to the reason of the average plaia
panied it with a Latin rendering of his own, in which man, whatever his predispositions might be; it was obiscus he aimed at giving the meaning of the Greek without blindly that the New Testament did not wholly conform to this following the conventional phraseology of the Latin Vulgate, standard. which was the only form in which the New Testament had been But if the New Testament be not itself the direct divise current in western Europe for centuries. This rendering of revelation in the sense of the 18th century, the question stil Erasmus, together with his annotations and prefaces to the remains, how we are to picture the true history of the several books, make his editions the first great monument of rise of Christianity, and what its true meaning is. modern Biblical study. Medieval Bibles contain short prefaces This is the question which has occupied the theologians by St Jerome and others. The stereotyped information supplied of the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps the most significant in these prefaces was drawn from various sources: Erasmus event from which to date the modern period is the pubhcation distinguishes, e.g., between the direct statements in the Acts and by Lessing in 1774-1777 of the “Wolfenbüttel Fragmeats," i. the inferences which may be drawn from incidental allusions in H. Ş. Reimarus' posthumous attack on Christianity, a york the Pauline Epistles, or from the statements of ancient non- which showed that the mere study of the New Testament is not canonical writers. This discrimination of sources is the starting- enough to compel belief in an unwilling reader. Lessing's point of scientific criticism.
publication also helped to demonstrate the weakness of the The early champions of Church reform in the beginning of older rationalist position, a position which really belongs to the the 16th century found in the Bible their most trustworthy 18th century, though its best-remembered exponent, Dr H. E G.
weapon. The picture of Apostolical Christianity Paulus, only died in 1851. The characteristic of the rationalists Reformers.
found in the New Testament offered indeed a glaring was the atiempt to explain away the New Testament miracles
contrast to the papal system of the later middle ages. as coincidences or naturally occurring events, while at tbe sa ze Moreover, some of the “ authorities” used by the Schoolmen time they held as tenaciously as possible to the accuracy of the had been discovered by the New Learning of the Renaissance letter of the New Testament narratives. The opposite swing to be no authorities at all, such as the writings falsely attributed of the pendulum appears in D. F. Strauss: in his to Dionysius the Areopagite. When, therefore, the breach came, Leben Jesu (1833) he abandons the shifts and exand the struggle between reformers and conservatives within pedients by which the rationalists eliminated the miraculous the undivided Church was transformed into a struggle between from the Gospel stories, but he abandons also their historical Protestants and Romanists, it was inevitable that the authority character. According to Strauss the fulfilments of prophecy which in the previous centuries had been ascribed to the Church in the New Testament arise from the Christians' belief that ibe
' E.g. from the preface to the Acts: " Dionysius, bishop of the Christian Messiah must have fulfilled the predictions of the Corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by Eusebius, writes prophets, and the miracles of Jesus in the New Testament either that Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the com- originate in the same way or are purely mythical embodiments mand of Nero on the same day." And again: Some industrious critics have added to the narrative of Acts) that Paul was acquitted
of Christian doctrines. at his first trial by Nero.. This conjecture they make from the The phrase is Chillingworth's (1637), who may be described as 2nd Ep. to Timothy....
a Broad High-churchman.
The main objection to this presentation, as also to that of The Johannine writings, i.e. the Fourth Gospel and the three the rationalists, is that it is very largely based not upon the Epistles of John, represent the view of Christ and Christianity Tübingea
historical data, but upon a pre-determined theory: taken by a Christian teacher, who seems to have lived and Granted the philosophical basis, the criticism practised written in Asia Minor at the close of the ist century A.D. The
upon the New Testament by Paulus and Strauss value of the Fourth Gospel as a narrative of events is a matter follows almost automatically. Herein lies the permanent im- of dispute, but the view of the personality of Jesus Christ set portance of the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur, professor forth in it is unquestionably that which the Church has accepted. of theology at Tübingen from 1826 to 1860. The corner-stone The discoveries of papyri in Upper Egypt during recent years, of his reconstruction of early Christian history is derived not containing original letters written by persons of various classes so much from philosophical principles as from a fresh study and in some cases contemporary with the Epistles of the New of the documents. Starting from Galatians and 1 Corinthians, Testament, have immensely increased our knowledge of the which are obviously the genuine letters of a Christian leader Greek of the period, and have cleared up not a few difficulties called Paul to his converts, Baur accepted 2 Corinthians and of language and expression. More important still is the applicaRomans as the work of the same hand. From the study of these tion of Semitic study to elucidate the Gospels. It is idle indeed contemporary and genuine documents, hc elaborated the theory to rewrite the Gospel narratives in the Aramaic dialect spoken by that the earliest Christianity, the Christianity of Jesus and the Christ and the apostles, but the main watchwords of the Gospel original apostles, was wholly Judaistic in tone and practice. theology-phrases like "the Kingdom of God,” “the World to Paul, converted to belief in Jesus as Messiah after the Crucifixion, come," the Father in Heaven,” “the Son of Man,”-can be was the first to perceive that for Christians Judaism had ceased more or less surely reconstructed from Jewish writings, and their to be binding. Between him and the older apostles arose a long meaning gauged apart from the special significance which they and fierce controversy, which was healed only when at last his received in Christian hands. This line of investigation has been disciples and the Judaizing disciples of the apostles coalesced specially followed by Professor G. Dalman in his Worte Jesu. into the Catholic Church. This only occurred, according to The study of the Semitic elements in early Christianity is less Baur, early in the 2nd century, when the strife was finally advanced than the study of the Greek elements, so at it is allayed and forgotten. The various documents which make doubtless from the Semitic side that further progress in the up the New Testament were to be dated mainly by their relation criticism of the New Testament may be expected. to the great dispute. The Apocalypse was a genuine work of John the son of Zebedee, one of the Icaders of the Judaistic articles on the books of the New Testament. The selection here
BIBLIOGRAPHY.-See the separate bibliographies to the separate party, but most of the books were late, at least in their present given of the vast literature of the subject has been drawn up with the form. The Acts, Baur thought, were written about A.D. 140, idea of setting the student on his way. 1. General and Historical.after the memory of the great controversy had almost passed Jerome's Prefaces (to be found in any R. C. edition of the Vulgate): away. All four Gospels also were to be placed in the 2nd century, Bible): F. Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers (3rd ed., London, 1887). though that according to Matthew retained many features Tor Erasmus; M. Creighton, “ Chillingworth" in the Dict
. of Nat. unaltered from the Judaistic original upon which it was based. Biogr.; Chr. Schrempi, Lessing als Philosoph (Stuttgart, 1906):
The Tübingen school founded by Baur dominated the theo- J. Estlin Carpenter, The Bible in the 19!h Century (London, 1903); logical criticism of the New Testament during a great part of A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus eu Wrede (Tübingen, 1906). 2. For the
the 19th century and it still finds some support. The trans. in The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels by E. A. Later
main position was not so much erroneous as one-sided. Abbott and W. G. Rushbrooke, London, 1884), Sir J. C. Hawkins,
The quarrel between St Paul and his opponents did Horse Synoplicae (Oxford, 1899); Prof. Julius Wellhausen, Einnot last so long as Baur supposed, and the great catastrophe leitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin, 1905), Das Evangelium of the fall of Jerusalem effectually reduced thorough-going these four books make one work; Prof. A. Harnack, Lukas der Judaistic Christianity into insignificance from A.D. 70 onwards.
Arzl (Berlin, 1905). 3. For the Fourth Gospel.-K. G. Bretschneider, Moreover, St Paul's converts do not seem to have adopted Probabilia (Leipzig, 1820); Matthew Arnold's God and the Bible, consistent “ Paulinism" as a religious philosophy. St Paul chaps. V., vi. (still the best defence in English of a Johannine kernel, was an emancipated Jew, but his converts were mostly Greeks 1905); A. Loisy. Le Quatrième Evangile (Paris, 1903); Prof. PW.
new ed., 1884); W. Sanday, Criticism of the fourth Gospel (Oxford, and the permanent significance of St Paul's theories of law and Schmiedel, Das vierte Evangelium gegenüber den drei ersten (Halle, faith only began to be perceived after his letters had been 1906). 4. For the Semitic Elements in the N.T.-Prof. G. Dalman, collected together and had been received into the Church's Die Worie Jesu (Leipzig, 1898), (Eng. trans., The Words of Jesus, canon. All these considerations tend to make the late dates 1905); Prof. Johannes Weiss, Die Predigl Jesu vom Reiche Gotte's
(1st ed. 1892, 2nd ed. 1900). The Protestant view of the New proposed by Baur for the greater part of the New Testament
Testament in Prof. A. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Berlin, books unnecessary; the latest investigators, notably Professor A. 1900). (Eng: trans., What is Christianity?, London, 1901) may be Harnack of Berlin, accept dates that are not far removed from compared with the Liberal Catholic view in A. Loisy, L'Evangile el the ancient Christian literary tradition.
l'Eglise (2nd ed., 1903).
(F. C. B.) Literary criticism of the Gospels points to a similar conclusion. A hundred years' study of the synoptic problem, i.e. the causes
5. New Teslament Chronology. which make the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke The subject of the chronology of the New Testament falls at once so much alike and so different, has resulted in the demon- naturally into tivo distinct sections—the chronology of the stration of the priority of Mark, which" was known to Matthew Gospels, that is, of the life of Christ; and the chronology of and Luke in the same state and with the same contents as we the Acts, that is, of the apostolic age. have it now.". This Gospel may be dated a very few years after A.D. 70. Luke and Matthew appear to have been published
The Chronology of the Gospels. between 80 and 100. Besides the Gospel of Mark these Evange- The data group themselves round three definite points and lists made use of another document, now lost, which contained the intervals between them: the definite points are the Nativity, many sayings of Jesus and some narratives not found in Mark. the Baptism and the Crucifixion; the age of Christ at the time
This document is by many scholars identified with the “Logia," of the Baptism connects the first two points, and the duration mentioned by Papias (Euscbius, Ch. Hist. iii. 39) as being the of his public ministry connects the second and third. The work of Matthew the Apostle, but the identification is not certain. results obtained under the different heads serve mutually to
test, and thereby to correct or confirm, one another. : J. Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei ersten Erangelien (1905), p. 57. 1. The date of the Nativity as fixed according to our common
of Luke used Josephus, as F. C. Burkitt and others believe, the later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more prob- computation of Anni Domini (first put forward by Dionysius able, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a companion | Exiguus at Rome early in the 6th century) has long been recogof St Paul.
nized to be too late. The fathers of the primitive church had been
nearer the truth with the years 3 or 2 B.C. (see Irenaeus, Hoer. But St Luke's account, when the name of Quirinius is subtracted III. xxi. 3 (xxiv. 2); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 21, p. 147; from it, ceases to contain any chronological evidence. Hippolytus, in Danielem, iv. ed. Bonwetsch, p. 242; (Tertullian), (c) Evidence of Tertullian.-Strangely enough, however. adv. Judaeos, 8). What may be called the received chronology the missing name of the governor under whom the cersas during the last two centuries has pushed the date farther back of the Nativity was carried out appears to be supplied by a to 4 B.C. But the considerations now to be adduced make it author who wrote more than a century after St Luke, and t25 probable that the true date is earlier still.
by no means a good reputation for historical trustworthiness (c) Evidence of St Matthew's Gospel (i. 18-ii. 22).—The birth of Tertullian, in fact (adv. Marcionem, iv. 19), employs against Christ took place before the death of Herod, and the evidence Marcion's denial of the true humanity of Christ the argument of Josephus fixes the death of Herod, with some approach to that it was well known that Sentius Saturninus carried out a certainty, in the early spring of 4 B.C. Josephus, indeed, while census under Augustus in Judaea, by consulung which the he tells us that Herod died not long before Passover, nowhere family and relationships of Christ could have been discovered names the exact year; but he gives four calculations which serve This Saturninus was the middle one of the three governors a to connect Herod's death with more or less known points, namely, Syria named above, and as his successor Varus must have the length of Herod's own reign, both from his de jure and from arrived by the middle of 6 B.C. at latest (for coins of Varts are his de facto accession, and the length of the reigns of two of his extant of the twenty-fifth year of the era of Actium), his can successors, Archelaus and Herod Philip, to the date of their tenure must have fallen about 8 and 7 B.C., and his cesses deposition and death respectively. The various calculations cannot be placed later than 7 or 7-6 B.C. The indeper.dence are not quite easy to harmonize, but the extent of choice for the of Tertullian's information about this census is guaranteed by year of Herod's death is limited to the years 4 and 3 B.C., with a the mere fact of his knowledge of the governor's name, and i very great preponderance of probability in favour of the former. there was a census about that date, it would be unreasonable How long before this the Nativity should be placed the Gospel not to identify it with St Luke's census of the Nativity. does not enable us to say precisсly, but as Herod's decree of The traditional Western day for the Christmas festival, 25th extermination included all infants up to two years of age, and as December, goes back as far as Hippolytus, loc. cil.; the trači. a sojourn of the Holy Family in Egypt of unknown length tional Eastern day, 6th January, as far as the Baslidian intervened between the massacre and Herod's death, it is clear Gnostics (but in their case only as a celebration of the Bapusa), that it is at least possible, so far as the evidence of this Gospel mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, loc. cit. goes, that the birth of Christ preceded Herod's death by as much 2. The interval between the Nativity and the Baptism. as two or three years. What is thus shown to be possible would, Evidence of St Luke's Gospel (iï. 23).-At the time of his of course, be necessary if we went on, with the astronomer baplism Jesus was åpxóuevos wel érūv Tpárosta, of which Kepler, to identify the star of the Magi with the conjunction of words two opposite misinterpretations must be avoided: (L) the planets Jupiter and Saturn which occurred, in the constella- åpxóuevos does not mean (as Valentinian interpreters thought tion Pisces, in May, October and December of 7 B.C.
Iren. 11. xxii. 5 (xxxiii. 31; so also Epiphanius, Hac. I. 16) (6) Evidence of St Luke's Gospel (ii. 1-8).—The birth of Christ
“beginning to be thirty years " in the sense of “ not yet quite took place at the time of a general census of the empire ordered thirty,” but “at the beginning of His ministry," as in Lule by Augustus: "it was the first census, and was made at the xxiii. 5; Acts i. 22, X. 37; (ii.) woel érün Tpiátorra dos time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Against this account mcanon attaining the full age of thirty, before which he could it has been urged that we know that the governorship of Syria not have publicly taught,” for if there was by Jewish caston c from 10 or 9 B.C. down to and after Herod's death was held tradition any minimum age for a teacher, it was not thirty, be: successively by M. Titius, C. Sentius Saturninus, and P. Quintilius forty (Bab. Talm. ed. 1715, fol. 19 6; Iren. loc cit.). St Luie's Varus; and further, that when Judaea became a Roman phrase is a gencral one, “about thirty years old,” and carpci province on the deposition of Archelaus in A.D. 6, Quirinius was bc so pressed as to exclude some latitude in either direcica. governor of Syria, and did carry out an elaborate census. The
3. The date of the Baptism. notice in the Gospel, it is suggested, grew out of a confused (c) Evidence of St Luke's Gospel (iii. 1).- A krinus cas recollection of the later (and only historical) census, and is for the Baptism is the synchronism of the commencercat devoid of any value whatever. At the other extreme Sir W. of the Baptist's public ministry with the fistcenth year M. Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, 1898, PP: 149 ff.) of the rule (vreuovía) of Tiberius. Augustus died on ich defends the exact accuracy of St Luke's “first census
August A.D. 14, and, reckoned from that point, Tiberius's nessing to the otherwise of course unknown) introduction fifteenth year might be, according to different methods ci into Syria of the periodic fourteen years' census which the calculation, either a.d. 28, or 28–29, or 29. But any sed evidence of papyri has lately established for Egypt, at least result would be difficult to reconcile with the results
yielded from A.D. 20 onwards. Reckoning back from a.d. 20, the periodic by other lines of investigation in this article; among altercensus should fall in 9 B.C., but Ramsay allegcs various causes native views the choice seems to lie between the following:for delay, which would have postponed the actual execution (i.) The years of Tiberius are here reckoned from some of the census till 7 B.C., and supposes that Quirinius was an earlier starting point than the death of his predecessaimperial commissioner specially appointed to carry it out. The probably from the grant to him of co-ordinate authority with truth secms to rest midway between these extremes. St Luke's
Augustus over the provinces made in A.D. 11 (see, for the parazid statement of a general census is in all probability erroneous, with the case of Vespasian and Titus, Ramsay, si Pakistan and the introduction of the name Quirinius appears to be due Roman Traveller, p. 387), so that the fsteenth year would be to confusion with the census of A.D. 6. But the confusion in roughly A.D. 25; or (ii.) St Luke has made here a second crtcr ia question would only be possible, or at any rate likely, if there chronology, caused perhaps in this case by reckoning back from really was a census at the time of the Nativity; and it is no more
the Crucifixion, and only allowing one year to the ministry of improbable that Herod should have held, or permitted to be Christ. held, a local census than that Archelaus of Cappadocia in the (6) Evidence of St John's Gospel (ii. 13, 20).- A terminu e reign of Tiberius (Tacitus, Ann. vi. 41) should have taken a
quem for the Baptism is the synchronism of the first Passore census of his own native state “after the Roman manner."
mentioned after it with the forty-sixth year of the buildiag a
Herod's Temple. Herod began the Temple in the eighteest ! It is a curious coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel year of his reign, probably 20-19 B.C., and the Passover of the (Abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets forty-sixth year is probably that of A.D. 27. While too much in this particular constellation was to be a sign of Messiah's coming. It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately depend stress must not be laid on a chain of reasoning open to scat on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to Chaldacan uncertainty at several points, it is difficult to suppose with Loisy, magi.
Qualrième Évangile, 1903, p. 293, that the number was intended
by the evangelist as purely figurative, and is therefore destitute simplifies the whole chronology, since the seast " which was of all historical meaning.
near " in vi. 4 would then be identical with the least of Tabernacles On the whole, the Baptism of Christ should probably be placed arranged to fall within the space of a single year, between the Pass
mentioned in vii. 2. and all the time-notices of the Gospel could be in A.D. 26–27; and as the Nativity was placed in 7-6 B.C. (at over of ii. 13 and the Passover of xi. 55. But of the lour authorities latest), this would make the age of Christ at his Baptism to be alleged, Irenaeus (11. xxii. 3 (xxxiii. 1]) and the Alogi (ap. Epiphanius. about thirty-iwo, which tallics, well enough with St Luke's Haer. li. 22) were giving catalogues of Passovers “ observed " by general estimate.
Christ (at Jerusalem), and therefore naturally omitted a mere
chronological reference like vi. 4: Cyril of Alexandria, in so far as 4. The interval between the Baptism and the Crucifixion, or, his evidence is adverse to the words, appears to be incorporating in other words, the duration of the public ministry of Christ. a passage from the Commentary of Origen, not extant in loc.; and
(a) Evidence of the Synoptic Tradilion and of si Mark's Gospel the only writer who perhaps really did omit the words-with the (ii. 23, vi. 39, xiv. 1).—The order of events in the primitive the then widely spread tradition of the single-year ministry-is synoptic tradition appears to be faithfully reproduced in St Origen himself. Mark; and if this order is chronological, Christ's ministry lasted (ii.) Interpretation (a) iv. 35: which is to be taken literally, the at least two years, since the plucking of the cars of corn (April- harvest" (about May)? it does not seem possible to rule out either June) marks a first spring; the feeding of the five thousand interpretation; the choice between them will follow from the view when the grass was fresh green (xAwpós: about March), a second; taken of the general chronological arrangement of the Gospel. and the Passover of the Crucifixion a third: and these three (B) v. i.. if " the scast" is read, a choice remains between Passover points are so far removed from one another in the narrative that and Tabernacles (the definite article would not be very definite after The conclusion would hold, even if the general arrangement in all); if the more probable " a feast," the greater feasts
are presumSt Mark were oniy roughly, and not minutely, chronological. (May), Trumpets (September). Dedication (December) and Purim On the other hand, it may be true that an impression of a briefer (February). Here again the decision will follow on the general period of ministry naturally results, and in early generations did chronological arrangement which may be adopted. actually result, from the synoptic account considered as a whole. is not so great as to obscure the main outline of the chronology.
(iii.) Arrangement.--So far the amount of possible latitude lest (6) Evidence of St Luke's Gospel (ix. 51-xix. 28 compared with For a first" (ii. 13, 20), second (vi. 4), and third (xi. 55) Passover iv. 14-ix. 50; iv. 19).-Still stronger is the impression of brevily are established, with two indeterminate notices (iv. 35. v. 1) between suggested by St Luke. The second and larger half of the narrative the first and second, and two determinate
notices (vii. 2 Tabernacles
in October, X. 22 Dedication in December) between the second and of the ministry is introduced at ix. 51 with the words, “ It came to pass as the days of His assumption were coming to the full, He especially in Germany and America, to manipulate the fourth Gospel
But of late years an increasing desire has been manisested, set His face firmly to go to Jerusalem,” under which phrase the on grounds of internal evidence, at first only in the way of particular evangelist cannot have meant to include more than a few months, transpositions of more or less attractiveness, but latterly also by perhaps not more than a few weeks; so that even if the earlier schemes of thorough-going, rearrangement. The former class of and shorter half of the account, which describes a purely Galilean proposals will as a rule hardly affect the chronology of the Gospel;
the latter will affect it vitally. The distinction here drawn may be ministry (" Judaea" in iv. 44, if it is the true reading, means illustrated from the earliest instance of the former and one of the Judaea in the sense of Palestine), is to be spread over a longer latest of the latter. In 1871 Archdeacon J. P Norris (Journal of period of time, the combined narrative can hardly have been Philology) wished to transpose chapters v. and vi.-ch. vi. was, like planned on the scale of more than a single year. St Luke himself what too late a point
in the body of the Gospel-and to read “the may have understood literally, like so many of his readers in scast "in v I, identifying it with the Passover which was near in ancient times, the reference which he records to the “ acceptable vi 4: in any case, whether “ the seast " = Passover, or " a seast year of the Lord ” (iv. 19= Isaiah lxi 2): see, 100, above, 3 (a) the two years ministry. In 1900 Professor B. W. Bacon (American
Journal of Theology, p. 770) proposed a rearrangement of the whole (c) Evidence of St John's Gospel (ii. 13, “the Passover of the Gospel, according to which the time-notices would occur in the Jews was near," and 23, “ He was in Jerusalem at the Passover at following order: vi. 4. Passover is near; iv. 35, the fields white the feast "; v. 1, " after these things was a feast for the feast 'lto harvest = May; v. i, “ a feast " = Pentecost; vii. 2. Tabernacles; of the Jews"; vi. 4, “and the Passover, the feast of the Jews, six days before Passover: ii 13. Passover is near and Jesus goes up
X. 22, Dedication; xi. 55. Passover is near: xii. 1, Jesus at Bethany was near "; vii. 2, " and the feast of the Jews, the Tabernacles, to Jerusalem (ii. 23, an interpolation) for the Passover of the Cruci. was near "; X. 22, at that time the feast of dedication took fixion; and the ministry would thus be reduced to a single year. place at Jerusalem "; xi. 55, "and the Passover of the Jews was
Such a scheme does not lend itself to discussion here; but as far as near": besides iv. 35, “say ye not that there is yet a period of evidence is at present obtainable, the conclusion that the fourth
evangelist drew up his narrative on the basis of a two years' rather four months and barvest cometh? behold, I tell you, lift up than a one year's ministry appears to be irrefragable. your eyes and see the fields that they are white to harvest ") This catena of time-references is of course unique in the Gospels Not only do the fourth and second Gospels thus agree in as a basis for a chronology of the ministry; and it is not reason-indications of a two years' ministry, but the notes of the middle able to doubt (with Loisy, loc. cit., who suggests that the aim was spring of the three (John vi. 4, Mark vi. 39) both belong to the to produce an artificial correspondence of a three and a half years' feeding of the 5000, one of the few points of actual contact ministry with the half-week of Daniel; but many and diverse as between the two Gospels. are the early interpretations of Daniel's seventy weeks, no one The question, however, may still be raised, whether these before Eusebius thought of connecting the half-week with the time-indications of the two Gospels are exhaustive, whether ministry), that the evangelist intended these notices as definite (that is) iwo years, and two years only, are to be allotted to the historical dala, possibly for the correction of the looser synoptic ministry. Irenaeus (11. xxii. 3-6 (xxxiii. 1-4]), in favour of a narratives and of the erroneous impressions to which they had ministry of not less than ten years, appeals (i.) to the tradition given rise. Unfortunately, difficulties, either (i.) of reading, or of Asia Minor; (ii.) to the record in St John that Christ, who was (ii.) of interpretation, or (iii.) of arrangement, have been raised thirty years old at the time of his baptism, was addressed by with regard to nearly all of them; and these dificulties must be the Jews as “ not yet (i.e nearly) fifty years old "': but both his brictly noticed here.
arguments are probably derived from a single source, Papias's
interpretation of John viii. 57 With this exception, however, (i.) Readings (a) v. 1, č.pth A B D. Origen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, all ancient writers, whether they enumerated iwo or three or Paschal Chronicle; y doprń xCLA 1-118. 33, ihe Egyptian versions, Eusebius, Cyril-Alex. (Irenaeus?). The balance of internal evidence
four Passovers in the Gospel history, believed that the enumcra-copyists being more likely to accentuate than to diminish the tion was exhaustive; and their belief appears correctly to repreprecision of a note of time—inclines, like the balance of external sent the mind of the author of the Fourth Gospel, sceing that his evidence. against the article. (B) vi. 4. Td ráoxa is read by all known various notes of time were probably in intentional contrast to the and Hort's New Testament in Greek, appendix. pp. 77-81) that your looser synoptic accounts. Moreover, the wide currency in early ancient authorities omitted the words, and that their omission times of the tradition of the single-year ministry (Ptolemaeus.