Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech Third Edition 1913 Public Domain--Copy Freely These files were produced by keying for use in the Online Bible. Proofreading was performed by Earl Melton. The printed editionused in creating this etext was the Kregal reprint of the ErnestHampden-Cook (1912) Third Edition, of the edition first publishedin 1909 by J. Clarke, London. Kregal edition ISBN 0-8254-4025-4. Due to the plans to add the Weymouth footnotes, the footnotemarkers have been left in the text and page break indicators. Other special markings are words surrounded with "*" to indicateemphasis, and phrases surrounded with "<>" to indicate bold OTqoutes. See WEYMOUTH. INT in WNTINT. ZIP for the introductionto the text, and information on Weymouth's techniques. The most current corrected files can be found on: Bible Foundation BBS 602-789-7040 (14. 4 kbs) If any errors are found, please notify me at the above bbs, or at: Mark Fuller 1129 E. Loyola Dr. Tempe, Az. 85282 (602) 829-8542 ----------- Corrections to the printed page --------------------- Introduction says personal pronouns referring to Jesus, when spokenby other than the author/narrator, are capitalized only when theyrecognize His deity. The following oversights in the third editionwere corrected in subsequent editions. Therefore we feel justifiedin correcting them in this computer version. Mt 22:16 Capitalized 'him'. Same person speaking as in v. 15. Mt 27:54 Capitalized 'he'. Joh 21:20 Capitalized 'his'Heb 12:6 Capitalized last 'HE' (referring to God). ==== changes made to printed page. Lu 11:49 Added closing quote at end of verse as later editions do. Lu 13:6 come > came (changed in later editions)Ro 11:16 it > if (an obvious typesetting error corrected in later editions)1Co 11:6 out > cut (an obvious typesetting error corrected in later editions)Php 4:3 the Word 'book' in 'book of Life' was not capitalized in various printings of the third edition, but it was in later editions. So we have capitalized it here. 2Ti 1:9 deserts > desserts (misspelling perpetuated in later editions) ==== no change made: Eph 6:17 did not capitalize 'word' as in Word of God. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION The Translation of the New Testament here offered toEnglish-speaking Christians is a bona fide translation madedirectly from the Greek, and is in no sense a revision. The planadopted has been the following. 1. An earnest endeavour has been made (based upon morethan sixty years' study of both the Greek and English languages, besides much further familiarity gained by continual teaching) toascertain the exact meaning of every passage not only by thelight that Classical Greek throws on the langruage used, but alsoby that which the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures afford;aid being sought too from Versions and Commentators ancient andmodern, and from the ample _et cetera_ of _apparatus grammaticus_and theological and Classical reviews and magazines--or rather, by means of occasional excursions into this vast prairie. 2. The sense thus seeming to have been ascertained, thenext step has been to consider how it could be most accuratelyand naturally exhibited in the English of the present day; inother words, how we can with some approach to probability supposethat the inspired writer himself would have expressed histhoughts, had he been writing in our age and country. /1 3. Lastly it has been evidently desirable to compare theresults thus attained with the renderings of other scholars, especially of course witll the Authorized and Revised Versions. But alas, the great majority of even "new translations, " socalled, are, in reality, only Tyndale's immortal work alittle--often very litLle--modernized! 4. But in the endeavour to find in Twentieth CenturyEnglish a precise equivalent for a Greek word, phrase, orsentence there are two dangers to be guarded against. There are aScylla and a Charybdis. On the one hand there is the English ofSociety, on the other hand that of the utterly uneducated, eachof these _patois_ having also its own special, though expressive, borderland which we name 'slang. ' But all these salient angles(as a professor of fortification might say) of our language areforbidden ground to the reverent translator of Holy Scripture. 5. But again, a _modern_ translation--does this implythat no words or phrases in any degree antiquated are to beadmitted? Not so, for great numbers of such words and phrases arestill in constant use. To be antiquated is not the same thing asto be obsolete or even obsolescent, and without at least a tingeof antiquity it is scarcely possible that there should be thatdignity of style that befits the sacred themes with which theEvangelists and Apostles deal. 6. It is plain that this attempt to bring out the senseof the Sacred Writings naturally as well as accurately inpresent-day English does not permit, except to a limited extent, the method of literal rendering--the _verbo verbum reddere_ atwhich Horace shrugs his shoulders. Dr. Welldon, recently Bishopof Calcutta, in the Preface (p. Vii) to his masterly translationof the _Nicomachean Ethics_ of Aristotle, writes, "I havedeliberately rejected the principle of trying to translate thesame Greek word by the same word in English, and wherecircumstances seemed to call for it I have sometimes used twoEnglish words to represent one word of the Greek;"--and he isperfectly right. With a slavish literality delicate shades ofmeaning cannot be reproduced, nor allowance be made for theinfluence of interwoven thought, or of the writer's evershifting--not to say changing--point of view. An utterly ignorantor utterly lazy man, if possessed of a little ingenuity, can withthe help of a dictionary and grammar give a word-for-wordrendering, whether intelligible or not, and print 'Translation'on his title-page. On the other hand it is a melancholy spectacleto see men of high ability and undoubted scholarship toil andstruggle at translation under a needless restriction toliterality, as in intellectual handcuffs and fetters, when theymight with advantage snap the bonds and fling them away, as Dr. Welldon has done: more melancholy still, if they are at the sametime racking their brains to exhibit the result of theirlabours---a splendid but idle philological _tour de force_ --inwhat was English nearly 300 years before. 7. Obviously any literal translation cannot but carryidioms of the earlier language into the later, where they willvery probably not be understood; /2 and more serious still is theevil when, as in the Jewish Greek of the N T, the earlierlanguage of the two is itself composite and abounds in forms ofspeech that belong to one earlier still. For the N. T. Greek, evenin the writings of Luke, contains a large number of Hebrewidioms; and a literal rendering into English cannot but partiallyveil, and in some degree distort, the true sense, even if it doesnot totally obscure it (and that too where _perfect_ clearnessshould be attained, if possible), by this admixture of Hebrew aswell as Greek forms of expression. 8. It follows that the reader who is bent upon getting aliteral rendering, such as he can commonly find in the R. V. Or(often a better one) in Darby's _New Testament_, should always beon his guard against its strong tendency to mislead. 9. One point however can hardly be too emphaticallystated. It is not the present Translator's ambition to supplantthe Versions already in general use, to which their intrinsicmerit or long familiarity or both have caused all Christian mindsso lovingly to cling. His desire has rather been to furnish asuccinct and compressed running commentary (not doctrinal) to beused sidc by side with its elder compeers. And yet there has beensomething of a remoter hope. It can scarcely be doubted that someday the attempt will be renewed to produce a satisfactory EnglishBible--one in some respects perhaps (but assuredly with great andimportant deviations) on the lines of the Revision of 1881, oreven altogether to supersede both the A. V. And the R. V. ; and itmay be that the Translation here offered will contribute somematerials that may be built into that far grander edifice. 10. THE GREEK TEXT here followed is that given in theTranslator's _Resultant Greek Testament_. 11. Of the VARIOUS READINGS only those are here givenwhich seem the most important, and which affect the renderinginto English. They are in the footnotes, with V. L. (_varialectio_) prefixed. As to the chief modern critical editions fulldetails will be found in the _Resultant Greek Testament_, whilefor the original authorities--MSS. , Versions, Patristicquotations--the reader must of necessity consult the great worksof Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others, or the numerousmonographs on separate Books. /3 In the margin of the R. V. Adistinction is made between readings supported by "a few ancientauthorities, " "some ancient authorities, " "many ancientauthorities, " and so on. Such valuation is not attempted in thiswork. 12. Considerable pains have been bestowed on the exactrendering of the tenses of the Greek verb; for by inexactness inthis detail the true sense cannot but be missed. That the Greektenses do not coincide, and cannot be expected to coincide withthose of the English verb; that--except in narrative--the aoristas a rule is _more_ exactly represented in English by our perfectwith "have" than by our simple past tense; and that in thisparticular the A. V. Is in scores of instances more correct thanthe R. V. ; the present Translator has contended (with argumentswhich some of the best scholars in Britain and in America hold tobe "unanswerable" and "indisputable") in a pamphlet _On theRendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect_. Even anoutline of the argument cannot be given in a Preface such asthis. 13. But he who would make a truly _English_ translationof a foreign book must not only select the right nouns, adjectives, and verbs, insert the suitable prepositions andauxiliaries, and triumph (if he can) over the seductions andblandishments of idioms with which he has been familiar from hisinfancy, but which, though forcible or beautiful with othersurroundings, are for all that part and parcel of that otherlanguage rather than of English: he has also to beware of_connecting his sentences_ in an un-English fashion. Now a careful examination of a number of authors(including Scottish, Irish, and American) yields some interestingresults. Taking at haphazard a passage from each of fifty-sixauthors, and counting on after some full stop till fifty finiteverbs--i. E. Verbs in the indicative, imperative, or subjunctivemood--have been reached (each finite verb, as every schoolboyknows, being the nucleus of one sentence or clause), it has beenfound that the connecting links of the fifty-six times fiftysentences are about one-third conjunctions, about one-thirdadverbs or relative and interrogative pronouns, while in the caseof the remaining third there is what the grammarians call an_asyndeton_--no formal grammatical connexion at all. But in thewriters of the N. T. Nearly _two_-thirds of the connecting linksare conjunctions. It follows that in order to make the style of atranslation true idiomatic English many of these conjunctionsmust be omitted, and for others adverbs, &c. , must besubstituted. The two conjunctions _for_ and _therefore_ are discussedat some length in two Appendices to the above-mentioned pamphleton the _Aorist_, to which the reader is referred. 14. The NOTES, with but few exceptions, are not of thenature of a general commentary. Some, as already intimated, referto the readings here followed, but the great majority are invindication or explanation of the renderings given. Since thecompletion of this new version nearly two years ago, ill-healthhas incapacitated the Translator from undertaking even thelightest work. He has therefore been obliged to entrust to otherhands the labour of critically examining and revising themanuscript and of seeing it through the press. This arduous taskhas been undertaken by Rev. Ernest Hampden-Cook, M. A. , St. John'sCollege, Cambridge, of Sandhach, Cheshire, with some co-operationfrom one of the Translator's sons; and the Translator is underdeep obligations to these two gentlemen for their kindness in thematter. He has also most cordially to thank Mr. Hampden-Cook formaking the existence of the work known to various members of theOLD MILLHILIANS' CLUB and other former pupils of the Translator, who in a truly substantial manner have manifested a generousdetermination to enable the volume to see the light. Verygrateful does the Translator feel to them for this signal mark oftheir friendship. Mr. Hampden-Cook is responsible for the headings of theparagraphs, and at my express desire has inserted some additionalnotes. I have further to express my gratitude to Rev. FrankBaliard, M. A. , B. Sc. , Lond. , at present of Sharrow, Sheffield, for some very valuable assistance which he has most kindly givenin connexion with the Introductions to the several books. I have also the pleasure of acknowledging the numerousvaluable and suggestive criticisms with which I have beenfavoured on some parts of the work, by an old friend, Rev. SydneyThelwall, B. A. , of Leamington, a clergyman of the Church ofEngland, whom I have known for many years as a painstaking andaccurate scholar, a well-read theologian. And a thoughtful anddevout student of Scripture. I am very thankful to Mr. H. L. Gethin. Mr. S. Hales, Mr. J. A. Latham, and Rev. T. A. Seed, for the care with which theyhave read the proof sheets. And now this Translation is humbly and prayerfullycommended to God's gracious blessing. R. F. W. /1. I am aware of what Proffessor Blackie has written on thissubject (_Aeschylus_, Pref. P. Viii) but the problem endeavouredto be solved in this Translation is as above stated. /2. A flagrant instance is the "having in a readiness" of 2 Cor. 10. 6, A. V. Althoglgh in Tyndale we find "and are redy to takevengeaunce, " and even Wiclif writes "and we han redi to venge. " /3 Such as McClellan's Four Gospels; Westcott on John's Gospel, John's Epistles, and _Hebrews_; Hackett on _Acts_, Lightfoot, andalso Ellicott, on various Epistles: Mayor on _James_; Edwards on_I Corinthians_ and _Hebrews_; Sanday and Headlam on _Romans_. Add to these Scrivener's very valuable _Introduction to theCriticism of the N. T. _ PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION For the purposes of this edition the whole volume hasbeen re-set in new type, and, in the hope of increasing theinterest and attractiveness of the Translation, all conversationshave been spaced out in accordance with modern custom. A freeruse than before has been made of capital letters, and by means ofsmall, raised figures, prefixed to words in the text, anindication has been griven whenever there is a footnote. "Capernaum" and "Philadelphia" have been substituted for the lessfamiliar but more literal "Capharnahum" and "Philadelpheia. " Manyerrata have been corrected, and a very considerable number ofwhat seemed to be infelicities or slight inaccuracies in theEnglish have been removed. A few additional footnotes have beeninserted, and, for the most part, those for which the Editor isresponsible have now the letters ED. Added to them. Sincere thanks are tendered to the many kind friends whohave expressed their appreciation of this Translation, or havehelped to make it better known, and to the many correspondentswho have sent criticisms of the previous editions, and madeuseful suggestions for the improvement of the volume. E. H. C. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES Aorist. Dr. Weymouth's Pamphlet on the Rendering of the Greek Aorist and Perfect Tenses into English. A. V. Authorised English Version, 1611. Cp. Compare. ED. Notes for which the Editor is responsible, wholly or in part. I. E. That is. Lit. Literally. LXX. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament. N. Note. Nn. Notes. N. T. New Testament. O. T. Old Testament. R. V. Revised English Version, 1881-85. S. H. Sanday and Headlam's Commentary on 'Romans. 'V. L. Varia Lectio. An alternative reading found in some Manuscripts of the New Testament. V. V. Verses. In accordance with modern English custom, _ITALICS_ areused to indicate emphasis. [In the etext, surounded by **] Old Testament quotations are printed in small capitals. [In the etext, surrounded by <>] During Christ's earthly ministry even His disciples did not alwaysrecognize His super-human nature and dignity. Accordingly, inthe Gospels of this Translation, it is only when the Evangeliststhemselves use of Him the words "He, " "Him, " "His, " that theseare spelt with capital initial letters. The spelling of "me" and "my" with small initial letters, whenused by Christ Himself in the Gospels, is explained by the factthat, before His Resurrection, He did not always emphasize Hisown super-human nature and dignity. The Good News as Recorded by Matthew There are ample reasons for accepting the uniformtradition which from earliest times has ascribed this Gospel toLevi the son of Alphaeus, who seems to have changed his name to'Matthew' on becoming a disciple of Jesus. Our information as tohis subsequent life is very scanty. After the feast which he madefor his old friends (Lu 5:29) his name only appears in the NewTestament in the list of the twelve Apostles. Early Christianwriters add little to our knowledge of him, but his life seems tohave been quiet and somewhat ascetic. He is also generallyrepresented as having died a natural death. Where his Gospel waswritten, or where he himself laboured, we cannot say. Not a little controversy has arisen as to the form inwhich this Gospel first appeared, that is, as to whether we havein the Greek MSS. An original document or a translation from anearlier Aramaic writing. Modern scholarship inclines to the viewthat the book is not a translation, but was probably written inGreek by Matthew himself, upon the basis of a previously issuedcollection of "Logia" or discourses, to the existence of whichPapias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome alltestify. The date of the Gospel, as we know it, is somewhatuncertain, but the best critical estimates are included between70 and 90, A. D. Perhaps, with Harnack, we may adopt 75, A. D. The book was evidently intended for Jewish converts, andexhibits Jesus as the God-appointed Messiah and King, thefulfiller of the Law and of the highest expectations of theJewish nation. This speciality of aim rather enhances thandiminishes its general value. Renan found reason for pronouncingit "the most important book of Christendom-- the most importantbook which has ever been written. " Its aim is manifestly didacticrather than chronological. The Good News as Recorded by Mark This Gospel is at once the briefest and earliest of thefour. Modern research confirms the ancient tradition that theauthor was Barnabas's cousin, "John, whose other name was Mark, "who during Paul's first missionary tour "departed from them" atPamphylia, "and returned to Jerusalem" (see Ac 12:12, 25;15:37, 39; Co 4:1O; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24; 1Pe 5:13). His defectionappeared to Paul sufficiently serious to warrant an emphaticrefusal to take him with him on a second tour, but in after yearsthe breach was healed and we find Mark with Paul again when hewrites to Colossae, and he is also mentioned approvingly in thesecond Letter to Timothy. Scholars are now almost unanimous in fixing the date ofthis Gospel between 63 and 70, A. D. There is no valid reason forquestioning the usual view that it was written in Rome. Clement, Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius, all assert that this was so. That the book was mainly intended for Gentiles, and especiallyRomans, seems probable from internal evidence. Latin forms notoccurring in other Gospels, together with explanations of Jewishterms and customs, and the omission of all reference to theJewish Law, point in this direction. Its vividness of narrationand pictorial minuteness of observation bespeak the testimony ofan eye-witness, and the assertion of Papias, quoted by Eusebius, that Mark was "the interpreter of Peter" is borne out by theGospel itself no less than by what we otherwise know of Mark andPeter. In a real though not mechanical sense, this is "theGospel of Peter, " and its admitted priority to the Gospels ofMatthew and Luke affords substantial reason for the assumptionthat it is to some extent the source whence they derive theirnarratives, although Papias distinctly affirms that Mark made noattempt at giving a carefully arranged history such as that atwhich Luke confessedly aimed. In spite of the witness of most uncial MSS. And thevaliant pleading of Dean Burgon and others, modern scholars arewell nigh unanimous in asserting that the last twelve verses ofthis Gospel are an appendix. Yet less cannot honestly be saidthan that they "must have been of very early date, " and that theyembody "a true apostolic tradition which may have been written bysome companion or successor of the original author. " In oneArmenian MS. They are attributed to Aristion. The Good News as Recorded by Luke Modern research has abundantly confirmed the ancienttradition that the anonymous author of the third Gospel is noneother than "Luke the beloved physician" and the narrator of the"Acts of the Apostles" (see. Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). EvenRenan acknowledges this, and the objections of a few extremistsappear to have been sufficiently answered. The date is not easy to settle. The main problem iswhether the book was written before or after the destruction ofJerusalem in 70, A. D. Not a few scholars whose views merit greatrespect still think that it preceded that event, but the majorityof critics believe otherwise. Three principal dates have beensuggested, 63, A. D. , 80, A. D. , 100, A. D. If we accept 80, A. D. , we shall be in substantial accord with Harnack, McGiffert, andPlummer, who fairly represent the best consensus of scholarlyopinion. There is no evidence as to where this Gospel wascomposed, although its general style suggests the influence ofsome Hellenic centre. Its special characteristics are plain. Itis written in purer Greek than the other Gospels, and ismanifestly the most historic and artistic. It has also the widestoutlook, having obviously been compiled for Gentiles, and, especially, for Greeks. The Author was evidently an educated manand probably a physician, and was also a close observer. Eighteen of the parables and six of the miracles foundhere are not recorded elsewhere. Those "portions of the Gospelnarrative which Luke alone has preserved for us, are among themost beautiful treasures which we possess, and we owe them in agreat measure to his desire to make his collection as full aspossible. " Luke's object was rather to write history thanconstruct an "apology" and for this reason his order is generallychronological. This Gospel is often termed, and not without reason, "theGospel of Paul. " Luke's close association with the greatApostle--an association to which the record in the Acts and alsothe Pauline Letters bear testimony--at once warrants and explainsthe ancient assumption that we have here a writing as trulycoloured by the influence of Paul as that of Mark was by Peter. This is especially the Gospel of gratuitous and universalsalvation. Its integrity has recently been placed beyond dispute. Marcion's edition of it in 140, A. D. , was a mutilation of theoriginal! The Good News as Recorded by John In spite of its rejection by Marcion and the Alogi, thefourth Gospel was accepted by most Christians at the end of thesecond century as having been written by the Apostle John. In thepresent day the preponderating tendency among scholars favoursthe traditional authorship. On the other hand the most recentscrutiny asserts: "Although many critics see no adequate reasonfor accepting the tradition which assigns the book to the ApostleJohn, and there are several cogent reasons to the contrary, theywould hardly deny that nevertheless the volume is Johannine--inthe sense that any historical element throughout its pages may betraced back directly or indirectly to that Apostle and hisschool. " As regards the date, no more definite period can beindicated than that suggested by Harnack--between 80, A. D. , and110, A. D. But that it was written in Ephesus is practicallycertain, and there is evidence that it was composed at therequest of Elders and believers belonging to the Churches ofRoman Asia. The special characteristics which render the book uniquein literature are unmistakable, but scarcely admit of briefexpression. It is manifestly supplementary to the other Gospelsand assumes that they are known and are true. The differencesbetween the fourth Gospel and the other three may be easilyexaggerated, but it must be acknowledged that they exist. Theyrelate, (1) to the ministry of Christ, and (2) to His person. Asto the former it is impossible to correlate all the references todistinct events, for whilst the Synoptics appear to contemplatelittle more than the life and work of a single year, from John'sstandpoint there can scarcely have been less than three yearsconcerned. As to the person of Christ, it must be owned thatalthough the fourth Gospel makes no assertion which contradictsthe character of Teacher and Reformer attributed to Him by theSynoptics, it presents to us a personage so enwrapped in mysteryand dignity as altogether to transcend ordinary human nature. This transcendent Personality is indeed the avowed centre of thewhole record, and His portrayal is its avowed purpose. Yet whilstthe writer never clearly reveals to us who he himself is, it isequally manifest that his own convictions constitute the matrixin which the discourses and events are imbedded, and that thereis nothing in this matrix to render that which it contains unrealor untrustworthy. The Acts of the Apostles The authorship of this book has been much discussed, butit may now be affirmed with certainty that the writer of ourthird Gospel is also the author of "the Acts, " and that he speaksfrom the standpoint of an eye-witness in the four we sections(16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1--28:16), and is known in Paul'sLetters as "Luke the beloved physician" (Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm1:24). The date necessarily depends upon that of the thirdGospel. If the latter was written before the destruction ofJerusalem, then Luke's second work may well have been issuedbetween 66 and 70, A. D. But the tendency, in the present day, isto date the Gospel somewhere between 75 and 85, A. D. , after thedestruction of the city. In that case "the Acts" may be assignedto any period between 80 and 90, A. D. The latter conclusion, though by no means certain, is perhaps the more probable. The familiar title of the book is somewhat unfortunate, for it is manifestly not the intention of the writer to describethe doings of the Apostles generally, but rather just so much ofthe labours of Peter and Paul--and especially the latter--as willserve to illustrate the growth of the early Church, and at thesame time exhibit the emancipation of Christianity from itsprimitive Judaic origin and environment. It is plain that the writer was contemporary with theevents he describes, and although his perfect ingenuousnessceaselessly connects his narrative with history, in no case hashe been proved to be in error. The intricacy of the connexionsbetween this record and the Pauline Letters will be bestestimated from a study of Paley's _Horae Paulinae_. We knownothing definite as to the place where the Acts was written, northe sources whence the information for the earlier portion of thenarrative was obtained. But it may be truthfully affirmed thatfrom the modern critical ordeal the work emerges as a definitewhole, and rather confirmed than weakened in regard to itsgeneral authenticity. Paul's Letter to the Romans The four books of the New Testament known as the Lettersto the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, are allowed bypractically all critics, including some of the most"destructive, " to be genuine productions of the Apostle Paul. Opinions vary as to the order of their composition. The latestresearch tends to put 'Galatians' first, and 'Romans' last, inthe period between 53 and 58 A. D. The date generally assigned tothe Roman Letter is 58 A. D. , but recently Harnack, McGiffert, Clemen and others have shown cause for putting it some four yearsearlier. The chronology of the period is necessarily verycomplicated. It must suffice, therefore, to regard this Letter ashaving been written, at either of these dates, from Corinth, where Paul was staying in the course of his third missionarytour. He was hoping to go to Rome, by way of Jerusalem, and thenproceed to Spain (15:24; Ac 24:21). The object of this Letter was to prepare the Christiansin Rome for his visit, and make a clear statement of the newdoctrines which he taught. It is probable that the crisis inGalatia, to which the Letter sent thither bears witness, haddriven the Apostle's thoughts in the direction of the subject ofJustification, and he was apparently much troubled by thepersistence of Jewish unbelief. Hence the present Letter has beenwell termed "the Gospel according to Paul. " We know really nothing about the Christians then in Romebeyond what we find here. It is, however, fairly certain thatreports concerning the Saviour would be taken to that city byproselytes, both before and after the events described in Acts 2, and we know that there was a large Jewish population thereamongst whom the seed would be sown. Some critics have thought"that a note addressed to Ephesus lies embedded in the 16thchapter, " because, they say, it is "inconceivable that Paul couldhave intimately known so many individuals in a Church like thatin Rome to which he was personally a stranger. " But this is by nomeans demonstrated, nor is there evidence that the Church therewas founded by any other Apostle. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians The genuineness of the two Letters to the Corinthians hasnever been seriously disputed. The first was written by theApostle Paul, probably in the early spring of 56 A. D. , justbefore he left Ephesus for Troas in the course of his thirdmissionary tour (Ac 19). The Church in Corinth had been foundedby him during his previous tour (Ac 18). After some hesitation hehad been induced to preach in Corinth, and in spite of theopposition of the Jews such great success attended his effortsthat he remained there for more than eighteen months. The furiousattack upon him which was frustrated by Gallio gave impetus tothe new cause, so that when the Apostle left, there was acomparatively strong Church there, consisting mostly of Greeks, but including not a few Jews also. The dangers, however, arisingout of the temperament and circumstances of the Corinthians soonmanifested themselves. The city was the capital of Roman Greece, a wealthy commercial centre, and the home of a restless, superficial intellectualism. Exuberant verbosity, selfishdisplay, excesses at the Lord's table, unseemly behaviour ofwomen at meetings for worship, and also abuse of spiritual gifts, were complicated by heathen influences and the corrupting customsof idolatry. Hence the Apostle's pleas, rebukes, andexhortations. Most noteworthy of all is his forceful treatment ofthe subject of the Resurrection of Christ; and this only aquarter of a century after the event. Of the Letter mentioned in5:9 we know nothing. Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians The second Letter to the Corinthians was probably writtenin the autumn of 56 A. D. , the first Letter to them having beensent in the spring of that year. But there are other letters ofwhich we have no clear account. One, lost to us, evidentlypreceded the first Letter (1Co 5:9). In our "second" Letter wefind mention (2:2, 4) of a severe communication which could notbut give pain. Can this have been our "first" to the Corinthians?Some think not, in which case there must have been an"intermediate" letter. This some students find in 2Co 10 1-8:1O. If so, there must have been four letters. Some have thought thatin 2Co 6:14-7:1, and 8, 9, yet another is embedded, makingpossibly five in all. The reader must form his own conclusions, inasmuch as the evidence is almost entirely internal. On thewhole it would seem that our first Letter, conveyed by Titus, hadproduced a good effect in the Corinthian Church, but that thiswore off, and that Titus returned to the Apostle in Ephesus withsuch disquieting news that a visit of Paul just then to Corinthwould have been very embarrassing, alike for the Church and theApostle. Hence, instead of going, he writes a "painful" letterand sends it by the same messenger, proceeding himself to Troasand thence to Macedonia, where, in great tension of spirit, heawaits the return of Titus. At last there comes a reassuringaccount, the relief derived from which is so great that oursecond Letter is written, with the double purpose of comfortingthose who had been so sharply rebuked and of preventing therecurrence of the evils which had called forth the remonstrance. In this way both the tenderness and the severity of the presentLetter may be explained. Paul's Letter to the Galatians There is no question as to the genuineness of thisPauline Letter, but unlike most other writings of the Apostle itwas addressed to "Churches" rather than to a single community. Formerly it was not easy to decide the precise meaning ofthe term "Galatia. " Opinions differed on the subject. The "NorthGalatian theory, " contended for by some German scholars, maintained that the Letter was addressed to the Churches ofAncyra, Tavium, Pessinus and possibly to those in other cities. The "South Galatian theory, " which now holds the field inEnglish-speaking countries, is to the effect that thecongregations intended were those of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystra; and this is strongly supported by the uniqueresemblance between this Letter and Paul's sermon in PisidianAntioch (Ac 13:14-41). In any case the population was very mixed, consisting of Phrygians, Greeks, Romans, Gauls and Jews. The date of the Letter cannot be exactly fixed. Theperiods assigned by recent scholarship vary from 46 A. D. To 58A. D. , but the medium estimate of 53 A. D. , adopted by Harnack andRamsay, satisfies all the requirements of the case. The Apostle certainly visited Galatia during his secondmissionary tour, perhaps about 51 A. D. , and, although sufferingfrom illness, was received with enthusiasm. After a short stay hedeparted cherishing a joyful confidence as to his converts there. But when, less than three years afterwards, he came again, hefound that the leaven of Judaism had produced a definiteapostasy, insomuch that both the freedom of individual believersand his own Apostolic authority were in danger. Even his personal presence (Ac 18:23) did not end thedifficulty. Hence, possibly during his journey between Macedoniaand Achaia, he sent this Letter. Its rugged and incoherent styleshows that it was dictated under great stress of feeling, and thedoctrine of justification by faith is stated more emphaticallythan in any other of his writings. But his earnest insistenceupon the "fruit borne by the Spirit" proves that his ideal ofpractical holiness was rather strengthened than impaired by hisplea for Faith as the mainspring of Christian life. Paul's Letter to the Ephesians This appears to have been a kind of circular Letter tothe Churches in Roman Asia, and was not addressed exclusively tothe Church in Ephesus. Ephesus was a well-known seaport and the principal cityin Roman Asia. It was famous alike for its wonderful temple, containing the shrine of Artemis, and for its vast theatre, whichwas capable of accommodating 50, 000 persons. Paul was forbidden at first to preach in Roman Asia (Ac16:6), but he afterwards visited Ephesus in company withPriscilla and Aquila (Ac 18:19). About three years later (Ac19:1) he came again and remained for some time--probably from 54to 57 A. D. --preaching and arguing in the school of Tyrannus, until driven away through the tumult raised by Demetrius. He thenwent to Jerusalem, by way of Miletus, but was arrested in theuproar created by the Jews and was taken first to Caesarea (Ac23:23), and thence to Rome (Ac 28:16). This was probably in thespring of 61 A. D. Late in 62 or early in 63 A. D. , this Letter was written, together with the companion Letters to the Colossians andPhilemon. Paul's Letter to the Philippians This Letter was written shortly before that to theEphesians, probably late in 61 or early in 62 A. D. Epaphroditushad been sent to Rome to assure the Apostle, in his imprisonment, of the tender and practical sympathy of the Philippian disciples(Php 2:25; 4:15, 16). The messenger, however, fell ill upon hisarrival, and only on his recovery could Paul, as in this Letter, express his appreciation of the thoughtful love of thePhilippians. The Apostle appears to have visited the city three times. In 52 A. D. It was the place of his first preaching in Europe (Ac16:12); but he came again in 57 and in 58 A. D. (Ac 20:2, 6), onthe last occasion spending the Passover season there. Two special traits in the Macedonian character arerecognized by the Apostle in this Letter; the position andinfluence of women, and the financial liberality of thePhilippians. It is remarkable that a Church displaying suchcharacteristics, and existing in a Roman "colonia, " should havelived, as this one did, "without a history, and have perishedwithout a memorial. " Paul's Letter to the Colossians This Letter belongs to the same group as those to theEphesians and Philemon, and was probably written from Rome about63 A. D. Colossae was a town in Phrygia (Roman Asia), on theriver Lycus, and was destroyed by an earthquake in the seventhyear of Nero's reign. The Church there was not founded by Paulhimself (Col 2:1), but by Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12), and thisLetter arose out of a visit which Epaphras paid to the Apostle, for the purpose of discussing with him the development, atColossae, of certain strange doctrines which may possibly havebeen a kind of early Gnosticism. Paul here writes to support theauthority and confirm the teaching of Epaphras. Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians During his second missionary tour (Ac 17), Paul came toThessalonica and preached the Good News there with no littlesuccess. The city--which had had its name given it by Cassander, after his wife, the sister of Alexander the Great--was the mostpopulous in Macedonia, besides being a "free city" and the seatof the Roman pro-consular administration. Its modern name isSaloniki. Very soon the unbelieving Jews stirred up the mob againstPaul and Silas, and dragged Jason before the magistrates. Hencethe brethren sent the missionaries away by night to Beroea, beingalarmed for their safety. As the Apostle was naturally anxiousabout the persecuted flock which he had been obliged to leavebehind, he made two attempts to return to them, but these beingfrustrated (1Th 2:18), he then sent Timothy, from Athens, toinquire after their welfare and encourage them. The report brought back was on the whole satisfactory, but left occasion for the self-defence, the warnings and theexhortations of this Letter, which was then sent from Corinth, probably in 53 A. D. Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians This Letter was written from Corinth not long after thepreceding one, and probably in the year 54 A. D. Its occasion wasthe reception of tidings from Thessalonica which showed thatthere had been a measure of misapprehension of the Apostle'steaching in regard to the Return of the Lord Jesus, and also thatthere was a definitely disorderly section in the Church there, capable of doing great harm. Hence Paul writes to correct the error into which hisconverts had fallen, and at the same time he uses strong languageas to the treatment to be dealt out to those members of theChurch who were given to idleness and insubordination. Paul's First Letter to Timothy There has never been any real doubt among Christianpeople as to the authorship of the three "pastoral" Letters. Butdefinite objections to their genuineness have been made in recenttimes upon the ground of such internal evidence as their style, the indications they present of advanced organization, theirhistoric standpoint and their references to developed heresy. Says one scholar, "While there is probably nothing inthem to which the Apostle would have objected, they must beregarded on account of their style as the product of one who hadbeen taught by Paul and now desired to convey certain teachingsunder cover of his name. The date need not be later than 80 A. D. " Yet a thorough examination of the matter does not supportsuch objections. It is certain that the three Letters stand orfall together, and there is no sufficient reason for dismissingthe ancient conclusion that they are all the genuine work ofPaul, and belong to the last years of his life, 66-67 A. D. This first Letter was probably written from Macedonia. Paul's Second Letter to Timothy The marks of genuineness in this Letter are verypronounced. For instance, the thanksgiving, the long list ofproper names--twenty-three in number--the personal details andthe manifest tone of sincerity and earnestness. Hence it isaccepted as Paul's even by some who reject the former Letter andthat addressed to Titus. But it is inseparable from the others, and was probably written from Rome during the Apostle's secondimprisonment. It is his last Letter known to us, and its apparentdate is 67 A. D. Paul's Letter to Titus This Letter was probably written from Ephesus in 67 A. D. Titus, who was a Greek by birth, is mentioned in eleven otherplaces in the Pauline Letters and always with marked approval(2Co 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Ga 2:1, 3; 2Ti 4:10). Hewas often a trusted messenger to the Churches, his last errandbeing to Dalmatia. Tradition confirms the inference commonlydrawn from this Letter that he was long the Bishop of the Churchin Crete, and regards Candia as having been his birthplace. Paul's Letter to Philemon This Letter (63 A. D. ) was written as the result of Paul'sdeep interest in Onesimus, a slave who had fled from Colossae toRome to get free from Philemon his master (Col 4:9). "A Phrygian slave was one of the lowest known types to befound in the Roman world, displaying all the worst features ofcharacter which the servile condition developed. Onesimus hadproved no exception. He ran away from his master, and, as Paulthought probable (verses 18, 19), not without helping himself to ashare of his master's possessions. By the help of what he hadstolen, and by the cleverness which afterwards made him sohelpful to Paul, he made his way to Rome, naturally drawn to thegreat centre, and prompted both by a desire to hide himself andby a youthful yearning to see the utmost the world could show ofglory and of vice. "But whether feeling his loneliness, or wearied with alife of vice, or impoverished and reduced to want, or seized witha fear of detection, he made his way to Paul, or unbosomedhimself to some Asiatic he saw on the street. And as he steppedout of the coarse debauchery and profanity of the crowded resortsof the metropolis into the room hallowed by the presence of Paul, he saw the foulness of the one life and the beauty of the other, and was persuaded to accept the gospel he had so often heard inhis master's house. "How long he remained with Paul does not appear, but itwas long enough to impress on the Apostle's mind that this slavewas no common man. Paul had devoted and active friends by him, but this slave, trained to watch his master's wants and toexecute promptly all that was entrusted to him, became almostindispensable to the Apostle. But to retain him, he feels, wouldbe to steal him, or at any rate to deprive Philemon of thepleasure of voluntarily sending him to minister to him (verse14). He therefore sends him back with this Letter, so exquisitelyworded that it cannot but have secured the forgiveness andcordial reception of Onesimus" (Marcus Dods, D. D. , _New TestamentIntroduction_). The Letter to the Hebrews As regards the date of this Letter, the only sureconclusion appears to be that it was before 70 A. D. The bookitself claims to have been written at the end of the Jewish Age(1:2; 9:26), whilst the earthly temple was still in existence(9:8), and it is inconceivable that such an overwhelming commentupon the writer's whole position as that afforded by thedestruction of Jerusalem would have been overlooked, had it beenavailable. Hence 67-68 A. D. May with probability be alleged asthe time of composition. The only fact clear as to the author isthat he was not the Apostle Paul. The early Fathers did notattribute the book to Paul, nor was it until the seventh centurythat the tendency to do this, derived from Jerome, swelled intoan ecclesiastical practice. From the book itself we see that theauthor must have been a Jew and a Hellenist, familiar with Philoas well as with the Old Testament, a friend of Timothy andwell-known to many of those whom he addressed, and not an Apostlebut decidedly acquainted with Apostolic thoughts; and that he notonly wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem but apparentlyhimself was never in Palestine. The name of Barnabas, and alsothat of Priscilla, has been suggested, but in reality all thesedistinctive marks appear to be found only in Apollos. So thatwith Luther, and not a few modern scholars, we must eitherattribute it to him or give up the quest. There has never been any question as to the canonicity ofthis Letter, nor can there be any doubt as to its perennial valueto the Church of Christ. Where it was written cannot be decided. "The brethren from Italy" (13:24) proves nothing. Nor is itpossible to decide to whom it was sent. "The Hebrews, " to whom itwas addressed, may have been resident in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus, or Rome. The most remarkable feature of the Letter ismanifestly its references to the old Covenant. Here there is amingling of reverence and iconoclasm. The unquestionably divineorigin of the Jewish dispensation is made use of for layingemphasis upon the infinitely superior glory of the Christianorder. Thus an _a fortiori_ argument pervades the whole --if theshadow was divine, how much more must the substance be! "Thelanguage of the Epistle, both in vocabulary and style, is purerand more vigorous than that of any other book of the NewTestament" (Westcott). James's Letter Four persons bearing the name of 'James' are mentioned inthe New Testament. (1) The Apostle, the son of Zabdi. (2) The Apostle, the son of Alphaeus. (3) The son of Mary the wife of Clopas. (4) The Lord's brother, mentioned as such along with Joses, Simonand Judah, and prominent in the Acts (12:17; 15:13; 21:18). The last-named was also known as 'James the Just' and isrepresented by tradition as having led an ascetic life, whichended in martyrdom. He was undoubtedly Bishop, or President, ofthe Church in Jerusalem and in all probability this Letter waswritten by him from that city. There has been some difference of opinion as to the dateof the book. The majority of scholars insist that both theinternal and external evidence point to its having been writtenbetween 44 and 50 A. D. , before the earliest of Paul's Letters. But, on the other hand, the solemn emphasis which the author laysupon the immediateness of the Lord's Return (5:7, 8, 9) may beregarded as a moral proof of a date very much nearer the windingup of the Mosaic dispensation in 70 A. D. The Letter may have been a Jewish one, addressed to theChristian converts from Judaism who were scattered abroad, withinor beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. Luther deemed it "anEpistle of straw, " by reason of its insistence upon the vitalimportance of 'works. ' But its practical ideal assumes the samebasis of Christian faith as is found in the Letters of Paul. Theopening references to severe trial seem to show that thepersecution begun by Herod Agrippa had already been repeatedelsewhere. If the later date of the book be admitted, thepersecution must then, of course, have been that under Nero. Peter's First Letter The state of things described in this Letter answers towhat we find in the first Letter to Timothy, and points to thesame period. The "fiery trial" referred to is probably thepersecution which, begun by Nero, in 64 A. D. , in order to divertattention from himself, was continued throughout the RomanEmpire. The Letter seems to be primarily addressed to those whoregarded Peter as the Apostle to the Jews, although it ismanifest that he did not think of these alone. The fact that itis "full of Pauline thought and Pauline language, " is accountedfor by the well-grounded supposition that Peter arrived in Romeshortly before Paul was released. So that this Letter, probablywritten about 65-66 A. D. , was definitely intended to set beforethe Churches of Roman Asia "the inspiring vision of the twoApostles working and planning together in the capital. " This would be at once the clearest lesson the Churchescould have concerning their unity, and a great encouragement tothose then undergoing tribulation and persecution on behalf ofChrist. Peter's Second Letter It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to eitherthe date or the authorship of this Letter. From the beginningthere have been doubts as to its genuineness and canonicity, andthese are represented to-day in the differing judgements ofcritics equally able and sincere. It has, however, unquestionably had a place in the canonof the New Testament since the Council of Laodicea in 372 A. D. , and there is certainly no such decisive evidence against it as towarrant our omitting it from the New Testament. It would appear that the writer, whoever he was, had seenthe Letter from Jude, and bore it in mind in this his plea forsuch character and conduct on the part of believers as wereworthy of their faith and would prepare them for the Coming ofthe Lord. The whole Letter constitutes an earnest appeal forpractical holiness. John's First Letter That this Letter was the actual work of the Apostle John, the son of Zabdi, has been abundantly testified from the veryearliest times. Some modern critics have doubted it, on the ground ofinternal evidence. But a calm survey of the whole case does notbear out their objections. Dr. Salmon well says that noexplanation of the origin of the Epistle fits the facts so wellas the one which has always prevailed. It seems to have beenaddressed to the Church at large, with perhaps special referenceto the Churches in Roman Asia. The connexion between this Letter and the fourth Gospelis "intimate and organic. The Gospel is objective and the Epistlesubjective. The Gospel suggests principles of conduct which theEpistle lays down explicitly. The Epistle implies facts which theGospel states as historically true. " This Letter appears to have been written from Ephesus, and critics have usually assigned 95 A. D. , or some other yearequally late in the Apostolic age, as the probable date of itscomposition. On the other hand the internal evidence points to adate immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A. D. See 2:8 (last clause); 2:18; 4:3; and note the expectationof a speedy Coming of Christ (2:28; 3:2)--an expectation whichseems almost to have ceased in the early Church after that date. John's Second Letter Although we are unable to fix the exact date of thisLetter or the place at which it was written, there is sufficientevidence, both external and internal, to warrant our acceptanceof it as a genuine work of the Apostle John. Some have thought that the "lady" addressed stands for anunknown Church, but upon careful consideration it appears morereasonable and natural to regard the Letter as having been aprivate one. It is impossible to discover the name of theindividual to whom it was sent, but both this and the followingLetter may be taken as "precious specimens of the privatecorrespondence of the beloved Apostle. " John's Third Letter There can be no doubt that this Letter was addressed toan individual person. We cannot affix to it a definite date, orplace, but the most natural supposition--which there is nothingto contradict--is that it came from the Apostle in Ephesus, aboutthe same time as the preceding Letter. The special mention of Diotrephes and his behaviourpoints indeed to a somewhat advanced development in the Church towhich Galus belonged, but such characters are all too possible atany juncture to afford in this instance any guarantee of a laterdate. In this, as in the preceding Letters, the writer's greatconcern is that transcendental truth should be embodied inpractical holiness. Jude's Letter Of the time and place of the composition of this Letterwe know nothing beyond what may be inferred from its contents. These seem to show that it was written in Palestine, and theabsence of any reference to so striking an event as thedestruction of Jerusalem points to a date earlier than 70 A. D. It has, however, been thought that such a rebuke of errorand licentiousness as that which this Letter contains can onlyapply to the forms of Gnosticism known to have existed in thefirst quarter of the second century. But there is no reason todoubt that the author was the man he asserts he was, the brotherof James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. He was, therefore, not an Apostle but one of the Lord's brothers. The abiding value of the Letter consists in its severecondemnation of merely professional Christianity, and itsremarkably beautiful doxology. The Revelation of John The Apocalypse was written either in 67, or in 96, A. D. An oft-quoted statement of Irenaeus that it, or its author--there is no word inserted to indicate which of the two hemeant--"was seen" about the end of the reign of Domitian, isregarded by many as a conclusive proof of the later date. On theother hand, the "internal evidence"--the evidence, that is, furnished by the contents of the book itself--appears to pointeven more unmistakably to the earlier date. E. G-. , in 11:1, 2, 8, the Holy City and the earthly Temple are spoken of as being stillin existence, and as about to be trodden under foot by theGentiles. The language of the book has also a bearing upon theproblem of its date. Although other explanations have beensuggested, the many Hebrew idioms that it contains as comparedwith the much purer Greek of the fourth Gospel-- which wasprobably by the same author--seem to indicate that it was writtenlong before that Gospel, at a time when the Apostle had as yetonly an imperfect acquaintance with the Greek language. Dr. Stuart Russell, in his work _The Parousia_, hascontended for the belief that the fall of Jerusalem and Judaismin 70 A. D. Marked a stupendous epoch in the unseen world, apersonal--although unrecorded--return of the Saviour to the earththen taking place (cp. Ac 7:55; 9:7; 1Co 9:1), accompanied by aspiritual judgement of bygone generations, a resurrection fromHades to Heaven of the faithful of past ages, and an ingatheringof saints then on earth into the Father's House of many mansions(Mt 24:31; Joh 14:3; 1Th 4:17; 2Th 2:1). If this belief ever obtains general acceptance theearlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fullyestablished. For it will then be seen that the book describesbeforehand events which took place in 70 A. D. And the yearsimmediately preceding, partly on earth and partly in thespiritual world, and is mainly concerned with the downfall of theearthly Jerusalem and the setting up of Christ's heavenlyKingdom--the new Jerusalem. And its many mysterious symbols willbe seen to have been a cipher of which the first Christians heldthe key, but which hid its meaning from their enemies. Many scholars, however, regard the book as a document ofNero's time carefully incorporated in one written about 90 A. D. :"a Jewish Apocalypse in a Christian framework;" both perhapsbeing by the same author. --EDITOR.