CHAPTER VII

III.

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE

Of primary importance are the epistles of the Apostle Paul. A century of critical discussion justifies us in accepting as authentic (naming them in a probable chronological order) I and II Thessalonians, Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, perhaps Ephesians, but only some fragments (mostly embodied in II Timothy) of the epistles to Timothy and Titus. The epistle to the Hebrews does not purport to be by Paul; it was already well known to Clement of Rome (it was probably originally addressed to that church), and may be dated 80-90. Chronologically the epistles of Paul are linked, on the one hand to the first generation of Christianity, on the other to secular history. Casual allusions to Peter and John, and to James and other brethren of the Lord show that the author was a contemporary of Jesus; while by means of the Acts of the Apostles he can be connected with certain personages whose dates are known to us from pagan sources. Since the conjunction of the epistles with the Acts is the sheet-anchor of early Christian chronology, more must be said about that book.

The latter part of the Acts gives an account of complicated journeyings to and fro in Asia Minor and through the coast towns of the Aegean made by Paul on his various preaching tours. These bring him into contact with persons like Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus and Agrippa, about whom we have information from other sources; and he stays at places about which, from inscriptions and allusions in ancient authors, we know a great deal. Such is the accuracy with which the representation of Acts accords with other information, that the book must either have been written by a companion of the Apostle—as the employment of the first person plural “we” in the latter part of the Acts would prima facie suggest —or else reproduces with considerable fidelity a diary kept by such a companion.

This narrative, in combination with occasional allusions in the letters of Paul, enables us to determine the place of writing, and approximately the date, of the majority of his letters. We are thus enabled to make full use of the historical evidence implied not only in these particular letters, but others which are connected with them by style or otherwise. For example, the first epistle to the Thessalonians was evidently written during the visit to Corinth described in Acts 18, when Paul was arraigned before the proconsul Gallo. An inscription found at Delphi shows that Gallo was proconsul in AD 52, and that office was rarely held for more than one year. I Corinthians was written during the long residence at Ephesus (Acts 19); II Corinthians on the way from Ephesus to Achaia (20, 1-2); Romans when again at Corinth (20, 3); Colossians and Philemon during Paul's last imprisonment. As I Thessalonians (with the possible exception of Galatians) appears to be the earliest of the surviving letters of Paul, we can assign the whole series to the period 50-64. The letters, however, were clearly written in the latter part of his career, so that Paul was almost an exact contem­porary of the historic Jesus; for the Crucifixion occurred under Pontius Pilate who governed Palestine AD 26-36.

The critical historian will draw a distinction between the earlier and later parts of Acts. Thus, while 16–28 rests in the main on the personal reminiscences of a companion of Paul, the section 1–15 appears to depend on traditions derived from Jerusalem or Antioch, of which some may well go back to circles hostile to Paul. We cannot recover the sources used; but, since the Gospel of Luke is by the same author, we can test his general fidelity to sources by the way in which in the earlier volume he uses Mark. So tested, he is seen to reproduce a source far more faithfully than does his contemporary Josephus when dealing with the Old Testament and Maccabees.

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts constitute a single work in two volumes—written for an educated public. The work is, in a sense, a “Defense of Christianity”, in the form of an account of the origins of the religion from the birth of the founder up to the eve of Nero's dramatic attack upon it. The case of Flavius Clemens and Domitilla, if rightly interpreted above, proves the existence before AD 95 of interest in Christianity in some circles of the Roman aristocracy. Since the Acts ends on an exultant note, with Paul's preaching of Christianity in Rome, it is probable that the author had these circles in mind. He is naturally concerned to state a good case for the religion he professes—and that, not merely because he believed it to be true (and there was no inducement in those days to profess Christianity unless one was passionately convinced of its truth) but also because a secret society suspected by the police simply cannot afford “to wash its dirty linen in public”. Hence he emphasizes the favorable attitude of Roman officials, like Pilate, Gallo or Festus, who all attest their conviction that Christians are neither criminals nor political revolutionaries. For the same reason he says as little as possible about the internal feuds between Paul and the Judaizing party who stood for strict observance of the Law of Moses—feuds which, as we gather from the Epistles, nearly split the Church. Again, as appears from Paul's own summary of his toils and endurances, there are big gaps in his story. The omission is due partly, perhaps, to lack of information, but mainly to his having less interest in an Apostle's biography than in the onward march of the Church. Lastly, being absolutely convinced of the supernatural mission of Christ and his Apostles, the canon of probability which he naturally applies in the acceptance or rejection of stories involving miracle is the opposite of that of a modern historian.

After the epistles of Paul, the earliest surviving document of primitive Christianity is the Gospel of Mark, probably produced in Rome about AD 65. Papias (writing c. 135) reports ‘The Elder’—a personage of an earlier generation—as saying that Mark based his Gospel on reminiscences of Peter's preaching; and many, though not all, of the stories included in the Gospel may well have been derived from that Apostle.

It is generally agreed that the authors of the Gospels ascribed to Matthew and Luke derived from Mark the greater part of their narrative material, other than their accounts of the Infancy and the Resurrection Appearances. Mark, however, contains very little of the teaching of Christ; for this we are mainly dependent on Matthew and Luke. To the extent of about a couple of hundred verses their concurrence in material not derivable from Mark is such as to make it reasonably certain that they both used a second document, which was already in the Greek language. The lost document was probably older than Mark; it is commonly referred to as Q. Most of the parables and many of the epigrammatic sayings of Christ occur either in Matthew or in Luke only. The extent and character of the material found only in Luke makes it highly probable that (besides Mark, Q and oral tradition) he made use of a third considerable written source. This source may have already been combined with Q, and the combination (which can in that case conveniently be styled Proto-Luke) may have included a version of the Passion story. That some at any rate of the sayings and parables found in Matthew only were derived from a written source is a probable hypothesis'.

The Gospel of Matthew is quoted in the (probably Syrian) Didache of perhaps c. 100 and by Ignatius of Antioch (c. 115) in a way which implies that it was the predominant Gospel, if not the only one, known to these writers. The dates which can reasonably be assigned to it vary between AD 8o and 100. The Gospel was evidently composed in a church where the Jewish element was strong; but the statement of Irenaeus, repeated with amplifications by later Fathers, that it was originally “published among the Hebrews in their own language” is almost certainly an inference—and that a mistaken one—from the statement by Papias (quoted by Eusebius): “Matthew composed it in the Hebrew tongue, and each one translated them as he could”. Our First Gospel is based on a combination of two Greek sources, Mark and Q; it cannot therefore be a direct translation from a single work in Hebrew. But if it was not composed in Hebrew, the inference that it originated in Palestine falls to the ground. Indeed, its dependence on Mark for narrative material, and the legendary character of its small supplements to Mark’s account of the Passion, tell strongly against an origin in the country where authentic independent traditions must have longest survived. As the place of origin, a probable guess is Antioch.

The Gospel of Luke seems to have been written independently of Matthew and at about the same date. The Theophilus to whom it is addressed is saluted as Kratiste—an honorific title, which might be rendered Your Excellency. Theophilus, then, may be the “name in religion”, as it were, of a Roman of high rank; and, as the Acts tells the tale of the march of Christianity from Jerusalem the capital of Judaism to Rome the capital of the world, it was probably written in that city. The preface implies that the work was put out under the author's own name; it was customary to give this on a kind of label which hung outside the roll. In spite of some difficulties the tradition may be accepted that the name was Luke. The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, may have been originally anonymous—a communal document produced for the use of a local church by a conservative combining and editing of venerated documents in the light of generally acceptable interpretations of obscure or controversial points.

The Gospel of John is not intended to be read as a biography, it is a mystical and theological interpretation of the life and teaching of Christ. The author draws material from Mark and Luke; doubtless also from independent tradition, though neither the extent nor the historical value of such tradition would seem great. Perhaps the most probable solution of an endlessly debated question is the hypothesis that the Gospel is by the same author as the three epistles of John, but was published posthumously, after some drastic editing. The writer of two of these epistles speaks of himself as 'The Elder,' and may be identical with 'The Elder John' mentioned in a fragment of Papias (c. 140) as 0a disciple of the Lord0—that is, presumably a person who had seen Christ but was not of the Twelve. In that case the Johannine epistles may be dated c. AD. 90; but the Gospel, if posthumously edited, may not have been given to the Church at large for many years. Hardly otherwise can we explain why the letter of Polycarp of Smyrna, which has echoes of nearly every book of the New Testament, including I and II John, shows no trace of a knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. The book of Revelation is by a Christian prophet, who also bore the quite common name of John; his work, addressed to the seven churches of Asia, c. 85-95, represents a point of view widely removed from that of the Gospel.

The epistles ascribed to Peter, James and Jude demand a brief mention. Scholars who uphold the authenticity of I Peter usually explain its apparent dependence on Paul by the hypothesis that the Silvanus Silas, companion of Paul, named as the amanuensis was really joint author. Its references to impending persecution are of special interest as reflecting the attitude towards a persecuting State adopted by Christian leaders. If the letter is not by Peter himself, the persecution referred to may be the one centring in Smyrna (c. AD 9o) alluded to in Revelation; or it may be that carried out in Bithynia under Pliny in AD 112. The ascription to James of the writing which bears his name (like that of Hebrews to Paul) was probably made after the name of the real author had been forgotten; it was perhaps produced in Rome, c. 95. Jude can hardly have been written by a brother of James; but may well be the work of a Jude who was bishop of Jerusalem about 105. The authenticity of II Peter was rejected by Eusebius on the ground that it was not quoted by early Christian writers. It incorporates, almost verbatim, the greater part of Jude; it was probably composed 130—150.

Of the writings known as the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ there are three which may fall within the first century, and which at one time came near inclusion in the New Testament—Clement, Hermas and the Didache. The letter from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth ascribed to Clement was apparently written shortly after the death of Domitian in AD 96. It at once acquired in many churches an all but canonical status. It is notable that, while the Old Testament alone has for Clement scriptural authority, Romans, I Corinthians and Hebrews are already religious classics. The Shepherd of Hermas is by a prophet, who wrote in Rome. He speaks of Clement as a contemporary, from which it would appear that at any rate the first four Visions (which were published at once) are not later than AD 100. The manual of Church Order known as the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles appears to emanate from Syria; but the date c. AD 100, which is accepted by most scholars, is hotly disputed. The epistle of Barnabas so-called and a homily misnamed the second epistle of Clement are of unknown authorship. They may be dated 110-135, and are probably both products of the Church of Alexandria. In this church there was some disposition to include Barnabas in the Canon; and in the Codex Sinaiticus it forms, along with Hermas, a kind of appendix to the New Testament. In the Codex Alexandrinus (probably written in Constantinople) a similar position is given to I and II Clement.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, late in the reign of Trajan, was condemned to the beasts in the Colosseum. On his way to Rome he wrote letters of which there survive seven—four written from Smyrna and three from Troas. In human interest as the reflection of an individual character the letters of Ignatius are second only to those of Paul. They were collected at once by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who sent copies to the Church at Philippi with a covering letter of his own. The extant letter of Polycarp seems to be made up of two letters. The covering letter above mentioned, written before there had been time to get news of Ignatius' martyrdom, constitutes chapters 13–14; chapters 1–12represent a second letter written perhaps as much as twenty years later.

This enumeration of Christian 'primitives' would be misleading without a warning against the error of treating the surviving literature as a representative cross-section of Christian opinion in the Sub-Apostolic Age. There must have also existed literature which at a later date was definitely branded as of a Gnostic or Ebionite tendency; this ceased to be copied, and has not survived. The severity of the struggle in the second century with extreme representatives of these tendencies is explicable only on the hypothesis that in a less extreme form they had a strong following within the Church.

IV.

THE FIRE FROM HEAVEN