a.n.a.lYSIS
The subject of the Epistle: CHRISTIANITY AS THE FINAL RELIGION. The contrast of the Old Revelation and the New in method, time, and messengers; the divine personality and incarnation of the Son (i. 1-4).
A. The superiority of the Son, the Mediator of the New Revelation, to the angels, and to the human founders of the Jewish polity: i. 5-iv. 13.
a. Scripture shows the Son to be above the angels (i. 5-14).
b. The danger of rejecting the Son"s revelation (ii. 1-4).
c. The Son of Man through suffering fulfils the high destiny of mankind (ii. 5-18).
d. The dignity of Jesus is far above that of Moses, He is the Maker and Son, Moses represents the house in which he is a servant (iii. 1-6).
e. Faith is necessary if we would enter the promised land of rest (iii.
7-19).
f. Encouragement as well as warning can be based on the failure of the Israelites. Under Joshua they did not reach their rest. The promise of it remains for us (iv. 1-13).
{218}
B. The high-priesthood of Christ, superior to that of Aaron"s line, universal and royal: iv. 14-vii. 28.
a. Transition to the doctrine of Christ"s high priesthood (iv. 14-16).
b. The characteristics of a high priest, human sympathy and divine appointment, fulfilled in Christ (v. 1-10).
c. A digression to urge the readers to advance; the writer"s hope for the Hebrews, G.o.d"s blessing is a.s.sured (v. 11-vi. 20).
d. The characteristics of Christ, as perfect and universal High Priest, shadowed forth by Melchizedek (vii.).
C. The liturgy and sanctuary of Christ superior to those of Judaism: viii. i-x. 18.
a. Christ offers sacrifice in heaven (viii. 1-6).
b. Thus He maintains the New Covenant between G.o.d and man promised in the Old Testament (viii. 7-13).
c. The sanctuary and priests of the Old Covenant (ix. 1-10).
d. Fuller explanation of the atoning work of Christ under the New Covenant (ix. 11-28).
e. The inadequacy of the old sacrifices, the abiding efficacy of Christ"s one sacrifice (x. 1-18).
D. The appropriation and application of the above truths: x. 19-xiii.
25.
a. The privilege of entering the holy place with confidence, the duty of public worship (x. 19-39).
b. The past triumphs of heroes of the faith (xi.).
c. Exhortation to energy, endurance, fidelity to our Mount Zion and its divine utterances (xii.).
d. Detailed instructions (xiii.).
[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ v. 26, says that Irenaeus "mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, comparing certain expressions from them." Eusebius does not say that Irenaeus attributed it to St. Paul. We can compare words in Heb. i. 1 with Wisd. vii. 22; Heb. i. 3 with Wisd. xvi. 21; Heb. xii. 17 with Wisd. xii. 10; Heb.
xiii. 7 with Wisd. ii. 17.
[2] Stephen Gobar, in a pa.s.sage preserved by Photius, Cod. 232.
[3] The word "effulgence" (Heb. i. 3) is a favourite word with Philo.
The interpretation of "King of Salem" as "King of peace" (Heb. vii. 2) occurs in Philo, and Heb. xiii. 5 has a quotation from Josh. i. 5 exactly resembling in form a quotation in Philo, _De conf. ling._, 33.
[4] _De Pudic_, 20.
{129}
CHAPTER XIX
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES
The New Testament contains seven letters known as "Catholic," viz. that of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and that of Jude. These letters were added to the Canon of the New Testament later than the rest of its contents. In ancient ma.n.u.scripts, versions, and catalogues their position in the New Testament varies, and for a long time they were often placed between Acts and St. Paul"s Epistles. 1 Peter and 1 John were the first to be universally received. About A.D. 300 all seven were known and received in the Greek Churches, but nearly as late as A.D. 350 the Syrian Church was unacquainted with any of them except James. After this the Syrian Church adopted 1 Peter and 1 John, and finally the whole seven. This fact with regard to the Syrian Church is of peculiar importance. It shows us that we must take care not to argue that an Epistle is probably a forgery because an important Christian community was unacquainted with it at a comparatively late date. For the evidence for the genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John is even stronger than the evidence for the genuineness of James. Yet at a time when the best Greek critics were entirely satisfied as to the genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John, the Syrians did not recognize them.
The only reasonable explanation of this is the simplest explanation, namely, that some Epistles were translated at a later date than others.
Among Syrian writers we find two distinct tendencies. Writers who were entirely at home with Greek literature, and in communion with the orthodox Greek Church, like St. Ephraim or St. John of Damascus, used the same Catholic {220} Epistles as the Christians of Alexandria or Jerusalem. On the other hand, Christians who were cut off by schism from the main body of Christendom continued for centuries to use exactly the same Canon of Scripture as that which had been employed by their ancestors before the schism. Thus Ebed Jesu, Metropolitan of Nisibis, and the last prelate of the Nestorian sect who wrote important works in Syriac, died in A.D. 1318. But we find that he only uses the three Catholic Epistles contained in the Pes.h.i.tta Syriac version of the New Testament, probably completed soon after A.D. 400.
If we pa.s.s from the extreme east to the extreme west of ancient Christendom, we find ourselves confronted with similar but not identical facts. We find that a superior degree of authority was allowed to belong to 1 Peter and 1 John. There can be no doubt that in all the great centres of Christian life outside Syria these two Epistles were in the Canon by the year 200. The _Muratorian Fragment_, written in Italy about A.D. 180, mentions two Epistles of St. John and that of St. Jude. It contains no mention of 1 Peter, but there are grounds for believing that there was a reference to it in the lost portion which was devoted to Mark. It contains no mention of James, though that Epistle seems to be quoted in the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, written at Rome about A.D. 140. It was long before James was universally regarded as part of the Canon. It is quoted as Scripture by Origen of Alexandria early in the 3rd century, but a hundred years later Eusebius says that it was disputed by a minority. It is accepted by Eusebius himself. The very private character of 2 and 3 John accounts for the slowness with which they won acceptance as part of the word of G.o.d, yet 2 John is backed by the high authority of Irenaeus, and both Epistles are obviously the work of the same author. The Second Epistle which bears the name of St. Peter is connected with peculiar difficulties, and possesses less evidence in its favour than any of the other Catholic Epistles.
We cannot do better than quote the admirable words in {221} which Dr.
Sanday has sketched the adventures of such books. "An Epistle lodged in the archives of a great and cultured Church like the Church of Rome would be one thing, and an Epistle straying about among the smaller communities of Bithynia or Pontus would be another; while an Epistle written to an individual like the Gaius of 3 St. John would have worse chances still. There were busy, careless, neglectful, and unmethodical people in those days as well as now; and we can easily imagine one of these precious rolls found with glad surprise, covered with dust in some forgotten hiding-place, and brought out to the view of a generation which had learnt to be more careful of its treasures. But even then, once off the main roads, circulation was not rapid; an obscure provincial Church might take some time in making its voice heard, and the authorities at headquarters might receive the reported discovery with suspicion. They might, or they might not, as it happened." [1]
But by degrees the customs of the different Churches were levelled.
Before the end of the 4th century all the Catholic Epistles were accepted as canonical in Europe, and in a large part of the Christian world which lay beyond Europe. This leads us to inquire why these Epistles bear the name of Catholic. The answer seems to be that the name Catholic or General was given to the more important of the seven, because they were addressed to the Church Universal, or to groups of Churches, and not to individuals or to single Churches. The words Catholic Epistles therefore signify Circular or Encyclical Letters.
Origen gives the name of Catholic to 1 Peter, 1 John, and Jude. By the 4th century the name was applied to all the seven. There can be little doubt that 2 and 3 John are not Catholic in the sense of being Circular or Encyclical. But they were numbered with the others for the sake of convenience, being naturally a.s.sociated with the first and more important letter by St. John.
{222}
The following table gives an idea of the gradual incorporation of the Catholic Epistles into the Canon. An * denotes a direct quotation or the expression of almost no doubt; a ? notes that the writer is aware of decided doubts, a () marks an uncertain reference.
1 2 J P P 1 2 3 a e e J J J J m t t o o o u e e e h h h d s r r n n n e
I. COUNCILS-- Laodicea, A.D. 363 . . . . . . . * * * * * * *
Rome, A.D. 382 . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * *
Carthage, A.D. 397 . . . . . . . * * * * * * *
II. EASTERN LISTS-- (a) _Syria._ Ephraim, A.D. 370 . . . . . * * * * * * *
Chrysostom, A.D. 400 . . . . * * *