PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC EPISTLES
We cannot wonder that an epoch of the church"s history which followed upon the martyrdom in rapid succession of all its remaining great leaders, should at first be poor in literary products. James the Lord"s brother was stoned to death by a mob in Jerusalem in the year 61-2. His namesake, brother of John, had been beheaded early in 44 by Herod Agrippa I. Among the "others" who, as Josephus informs us, perished along with James in 61, we may, perhaps, reckon John, who stands beside him in Paul"s list of the Pillars. This John, son of Zebedee, brother of the other James, is reckoned a martyr in the same sense as his brother in the earliest gospels. The brothers are a.s.sured that they shall drink the same cup of suffering as the Lord, though they may not claim in return pre-eminent seats in glory (Mark x. 39 f.). John did not suffer with his brother James in 44, because he is present at the conference in 46-7 (Gal. ii. 9); but one of the traditions of the Jerusalem elders reported by Papias declared that he was "killed by the Jews" in fulfilment of the Lord"s prediction, and this early tradition must be accepted in spite of its conflict with one which gradually superseded it after John came to be regarded as author of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel. The statement that he was killed "together with James his brother" may be due merely to the (not infrequent) confusion of the two Jameses.
Paul"s decapitation in Rome occurred not more than a year or two later, and was followed there in 64, according to very ancient and trustworthy tradition, by the martyrdom of Peter. The death of all the princ.i.p.al leaders explains why the Jerusalem church when it rea.s.sembled after the overthrow of city and temple in the year 70, put forward no more prominent candidates for the leadership than a certain Symeon, son of Clopas, one of the group of "relatives of the Lord" who are traceable "until the time of Trajan," and a certain unknown Thebuthis. Symeon, according to Eusebius, who takes his account from Hegesippus (165), was the representative of "those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living, together with the Lord"s relatives." Thebuthis is said to have sprung from one of the heretical Jewish sects and to have organized a schism in consequence of his disappointment. All we can be sure of is that Jerusalem "down to the time of Trajan" continued to regard itself as the seat of apostolic authority and arbiter of orthodoxy, on account of its succession of disciples and relatives of the Lord. Among the latter the leading, if not the only, representatives of the seed of David, when "search was made" in the persecution under Domitian (81-95), were two _grandsons_ of Jude, the Lord"s brother. Jude himself, then, was no longer living. Luke (_c._ 100), Papias (145), and Hegesippus (165) successively exhibit the growing authority of the "tradition handed down," especially that of "the apostles and elders in Jerusalem." But what Papias records of the traditions of these "elders"
does not rise above the level of Jewish midrash, and the epistles which bear the names of James and Jude have little intrinsic value, and enjoyed from the beginning only the most meagre acceptance. At Rome tradition attaches to the name of Peter, but besides the bare fact of his martyrdom "at the same time with Paul" (64-5) it has little of value to relate. We cannot safely go beyond the tradition reported by Porphyry that Peter fed the lambs (at Rome) for a few months before his martyrdom, and that reported by Papias that Mark, who had been Peter"s a.s.sistant, compiled there the Gospel which bears his name, basing it upon his recollections of Peter"s preaching. Of this vitally important work (_c._ A.D. 75) we must speak in another connection. We are concerned at present with writings which directly reflect the development of Christian life and doctrine in this sub-apostolic period, especially that in the Pauline mission-field.
Except for the appearance of the Gospel of Mark at Rome (_c._ 75) there remains nothing to break the silence and darkness of twenty years after the deaths of James and Peter and Paul. The writings which finally did appear were almost inevitably anonymous or pseudepigraphic, because apostolic authority stood so high that no other could secure circulation. Hebrews (_c._ 85) has an epistolary attachment at the close of its "exhortation," but either never had an address or superscription, or else has been deprived of it. All the Synoptic writings are anonymous, though Luke-Acts (_c._ 100) is dedicated to a literary patron. Revelation (_c._ 95) is boldly a.s.serted to be the work of the Apostle John in the prefatory chapters and the epilogue (i. 2, 4, 9; xxii. 8). But the body of the work, though of Palestinian origin, has a totally different standpoint, and claims the authority of a prophet, not that of an apostle. Similarly the Fourth gospel when finally published received an appendix (ch. xxi.) which cautiously suggests the Apostle John as its author; but the three Epistles by the same writer are anonymous. The homily called James (90-100) has a superscription which superficially connects it with the chief authority in Jerusalem, and the Epistle of Jude prefixes to itself the name which stood next in the same cla.s.s. But even in antiquity they had a precarious standing, and neither is a real letter. Finally there are the Epistles to Timothy and t.i.tus, purporting to be written by Paul, and a whole series of every kind, epistles, gospel, acts, and apocalypse, written in the name of Peter, of which only two secured final adoption into the canon. Of all these only 1st Peter and the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1st and 2nd Timothy and t.i.tus) have some claim to be considered genuine; for 1st Peter is certainly of early origin (_c._ 85), and was undisputed in antiquity; while the Pastorals, though rejected by Marcion, and as a whole of late date (90-110), are made up on the basis of some authentic Pauline material.
The post-apostolic epistles may be grouped into two cla.s.ses, according as they are predominantly occasioned (_a_) by internal dangers of heresy and moral laxity; or (_b_) by the external peril of persecution. To the former (_a_) must be reckoned (1) the so-called Pastoral Epistles; (2) Jude; (3) 2nd Peter. All these concern themselves outspokenly with a type of false doctrine which has certain more or less definite traits, and is tending toward the Gnostic heresies of the second century, if not yet clearly identifiable with them. But the inspired genius of Paul is wanting. The age is not creative, but conservative. Its writers are ecclesiastics and church teachers, not apostles and prophets. Their distinctive note is appeal to apostolic authority. Whether the name by which they cover their own insignificance be that of "Paul," or "Jude the brother (son?) of James," or "Peter," they have little or no independent message. They hark back to the "pattern of sound words" the "deposit," "the faith once for all delivered to the saints," "the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles," in particular the "wisdom of our beloved brother Paul" who (in the Pastoral Epistles) had predicted the heresy, and "in all his epistles" had spoken of the resurrection and judgment.
Second Peter, which refers in the pa.s.sage just quoted (2nd Pet. iii. 2, 15 f.) to the Pauline Epistles alongside "the other Scriptures"
belongs to a very late period (_c._ 150). In fact this Epistle, now almost universally recognized to be pseudonymous, merely reedits the Epistle of Jude, supplying a prefix (ch. i.) and an appendix (ch. iii.) to make special application of its denunciations to the case of the false teachers who were "denying the (bodily) resurrection and the judgment." Neither plagiarism nor pseudonymity were recognized offences at the time; so that we bring no indictment against the author of 2nd Peter, were he the Apostle or not. Still our conception of the Galilean fisherman will be higher without this example of pulpit rhetoric than with it.
Of the nature of the heresies controverted in this series of writings we must speak later. As to the region whence they originate something can be made out already. Not indeed from 2nd Peter, which is of too late date to be of service. True the readers addressed are a.s.sumed to be the same as in the first epistle, in other words the Pauline mission-field of Asia Minor (1st Pet. i. 1), and there is reason to think "Asia" was the region first affected. "Ephesus" and "Asia" are in fact the regions affected in 1st and 2nd Timothy (1st Tim. i. 3 f.; 2nd Tim. i. 15).
Moreover it is in this same region that we find Polycarp (110-117) adverting to those who "pervert the sayings of the Lord to their own l.u.s.ts, and deny the resurrection and judgment." To the same region and the same period belong the letters of "the Spirit" in Rev. i.-iii. (_c._ 95) with their denunciation of the Balaamite and Nicolaitan heretics, and still further 1st-3rd John and the Epistles of Ignatius, which are also polemics against a Gnostic heresy (Doketism) tending to moral laxity. It is doubtful, however, in view of the general address (2nd Pet. i. 1), whether the author of 2nd Peter really has a definite circle in mind, and does not rather in iii. 1 mistakenly treat 1st Peter as a general epistle. Denial of the resurrection and judgment was not limited to one locality or period. Hegesippus regards it as a pre-Christian heresy combated already by James. Equally precarious would be the a.s.sumption that Jude, with its similar general address, was necessarily intended for Asia Minor. The false teachers resemble those we know of there, and the denunciation is incorporated by 2nd Peter, but "Cainites"
and "Balaamites" were not confined to the regions of 1st John and Revelation, and Jude might have almost any date between 90 and 120. The most that can be said is that before the death of Paul the last view we obtain of his mission-field shows it exposed, especially in the region of Ephesus, to a rising flood of superst.i.tion and false doctrine, while doc.u.ments that can be dated with some definiteness in 95-117, such as Revelation, the Johannine and Ignatian Epistles, and the letter of Polycarp, show a great advance of heretical teaching in the same region.
The later heresy corresponds in several respects to that combated in the Pastorals, Jude and 2nd Peter, but becomes at last more distinctly definable as Doketism, whose most obnoxious form comes to be denial of the (bodily) resurrection and judgment. The three Pastoral Epistles, Jude and 2nd Peter may, therefore, be taken as probably reflecting the growing internal danger confronted by the churches of Asia (if not by all the churches) in the sub-apostolic age.
Unfortunately, literary relations sometimes interfere with historical cla.s.sification, and we are, therefore, compelled to defer treatment of 1st-3rd John and the Epistles of "the Spirit" to the churches (Rev. i.
3), which really belong to our present group (_a_) of writings against the heresies of (proconsular) Asia. Their relation to the special canon of Ephesus, whose writings are all ascribed to John, makes it convenient to consider them in another connection. The reader should bear in mind, however, that the group extends continuously down to the Epistles of Ignatius and centres upon Ephesus, where, according to Acts xx. 29 f., the "grievous wolves" were to enter in after Paul"s departing.
Similar considerations affect the grouping of the Epistle of James, which almost demands a cla.s.s by itself. It might be called anti-heretical, except that its nature is the reverse of controversial, and its author seems to have no direct contact with the false teachers.
In a remote and general way he deplores the vain talk and disputation which go hand in hand with a relaxation of the practical Christian virtues. On the whole it seems more correct to cla.s.s James with 1st Peter and Hebrews, particularly as it displays direct literary dependence on the former, if not on both.
Our second group (_b_) consists of writings not primarily concerned with heresy. Its first and best example speaks in the name of Peter as representative of "apostolic" Christianity at Rome. But the doctrine, and even the phraseology and ill.u.s.trations of 1st Peter are largely borrowed from the greater Epistles of Paul, particularly Romans and Ephesians. Nothing even remotely suggests an author who had enjoyed personal relations with Jesus, or could relate his wonderful words and deeds. On the contrary the doctrine is Paul"s gospel minus the sting of the abolition of the Law. In view of the known internal conditions of the churches to which 1st Peter is addressed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, _Asia_ and Bithynia it is remarkable how completely the subject of heresy or false doctrine is ignored. Their adversary the devil is not at present taking the form of a seducing serpent (2nd Cor.
xi. 3), but of a "roaring lion" openly destroying and devouring (1st Pet. v. 8 f.), and the same sufferings the Asiatics are called upon to endure are being inflicted upon their brethren throughout the world. A systematic, universal "fiery persecution" is going on, which has come almost as a surprise (iv. 12) and may compel any believer, after having made "defence" before the magistrate of "the hope that is in him," to "suffer as a Christian" and to "glorify G.o.d in this name." The author exhorts to irreproachable conduct as citizens, and kindness and good order in the brotherhood. If such blamelessness of living be combined with patient endurance of the unjust punishment, Christians who still must sanctify in their hearts Christ (and not the Emperor) as Lord, will ultimately be left unharmed.
Superior as is this n.o.ble exhortation to patient endurance of suffering in the meekness of Christ to the controversial rhetoric of 2nd Peter, immeasurably better as is its attestation in ancient and modern times, even the most conservative modern critics are compelled to regard it as at least semi-pseudonymous. It might be just possible to carry back the conditions of persecution presupposed to the time of Nero. But if it be Peter writing from Rome after the recent martyrdoms of James and Paul, why is there no allusion to either? Again, we might possibly prolong the life of Peter (against all probability) down to the beginning of the reign of Domitian (81-95). In that case the absence of any allusion to the great events of recent occurrence in Palestine would be almost equally hard to explain. Moreover, with any dating the real author remains a literary man, a Paulinist, a Grecian Jew, and the share attributable to Peter personally becomes most shadowy. The simpler, and (as the present writer has come to believe) the more probable view is that 1st Peter, like the later writings which a.s.sumed the name, is wholly pseudonymous. If, however, it appeared (as we are persuaded) some twenty years after the Apostle"s death, among those perfectly aware of the fact, a.s.suming no other disguise, but frankly dealing with the existing situation, this is a kind of pseudonymity which should be cla.s.sed with literary fictions and conventions which are harmless because (at the time) perfectly transparent. Letters written under fict.i.tious names were in fact a very common literary device of the age.
At all events the Apostle appears as an old man (v. 1) writing from "Babylon"--rightly taken by the fathers to be a cryptogram for Rome.
Salutations are conveyed from Mark, his "son" (_cf._ Philem. i. 10). The bearer (writer?) is represented to be Silva.n.u.s (like Mark a companion of Paul with relations to Jerusalem as well), and Silva.n.u.s is commended as a "trustworthy" disciple. The author states it as his object to "exhort and testify that this is the true grace of G.o.d wherein ye stand."
Ignorant as we are of its author"s name it is fortunate for our study of the times that the date of 1st Peter is fairly determinable by the convergence of external and internal evidence. Echoes from it appear already in Clement of Rome (95) as well as in James and Hermas. We must think of it, then, as a hand of cordial encouragement extended by a representative of the Petro-Pauline church at Rome, soon after the outbreak of the persecution of Domitian (_c._ 90), to the still independent but suffering churches of Asia Minor. If we remember that it undertakes to endorse the doctrine of one third of contemporary Christendom, and (in substance) offers a "letter of commendation" to Silva.n.u.s, it will be obvious that no name of less authority than that of Peter could have served. As Zahn has well remarked: "The significant thing ... is that it is Peter, the most distinguished apostle of the circ.u.mcision (Gal. ii. 7) who bears witness to the genuineness of their state of grace."
We must place alongside of 1st Peter one other epistle in which the motive of exhortation to endurance of persecution without relaxation of the moral standard is prominent, though not exclusive, and a second, wherein it appears only in a faint echo of "trials," which turn out, however, as the reader proceeds, to be only "temptations," while the real occasion of writing is plain--moral relaxation without either heresy or persecution to excuse it. The two writings in question are the anonymous "exhortation" handed down under the t.i.tle "To the Hebrews,"
and the so-called Epistle (in reality a homily) of James. Hebrews begins as an exposition of the two psalms Paul had quoted in his reference in 1st Cor. xv. 24-28 to the exaltation of Jesus (Pss. viii. and cx.) proving Him to be the Son, who, after temporary subordination to the angels, has been exalted above them to the place of supreme dominion.
Christ has thus effected a greater redemption than Moses and Joshua. He is also a "high-priest after the order of Melchizedek" according to Ps.
cx.; so that the Aaronic priesthood and ceremonial are surpa.s.sed as well as the Mosaic legislation, by the sacrifice of Calvary and intercession of the risen Redeemer. It is no wonder that in the period of debate against Judaism the canon-makers gave to this anonymous sermon a t.i.tle which ranks it first in the cla.s.s of subsequent controversial pamphlets "against the Jews." Controversy, however, is subordinate in the writer"s purpose to edification. He is not unconscious of the dangers of that superst.i.tious "worship of the angels," against which Paul"s Asian epistles had been directed, but his demonstration of the superiority of the inst.i.tutions and aims of Christianity to those of Judaism has the practical object of reinforcing the courage and "faith" of his readers under pressure of persecution. His argument culminates in an inspiring list of Scriptural heroes and martyrs, leading up as a climax to "Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith." As Jesus endured, looking beyond the shame and suffering of the cross to the joy of His reward, so should the readers "endure their chastening." Apostacy will meet a fearful doom in the judgment of fire. To this homily (Heb. i.-xii.) is appended a concluding chapter (probably by the author himself) which transforms it into a letter. The author is a church-teacher of the second generation, as he frankly confesses himself (ii. 3); a disciple of Paul, to judge by his use of Paul"s doctrine and some of his epistles, especially Romans.
To judge by his rhetorical style and his Alexandrian ideas and mode of thought, he is the sort of teacher Apollos will have been. Just at present he is separated from his flock (xiii. 19). Where they are we can only infer from xiii. 24, which conveys salutations from those in the writer"s neighbourhood who are "from Italy." He himself is probably among the Pauline churches, for he sends news of Timothy (xiii. 23) and hopes to come soon in company with him. Ephesus, where Apollos was at last accounts, may possibly be the place of writing. Hebrews would seem then to be written to Rome, long after the first "great fight of afflictions" (the Neronian outbreak of 64) and when the danger of "fainting under the chastening" of a second persecution (that of Domitian _c._ 90) was imminent. Such slight indications as we have of a literary relation between Hebrews and 1st Peter suggest the priority of Hebrews, but the date and occasion must be nearly the same.
"James" is also a homily exhorting to patient endurance, but there is nothing to suggest its having ever been sent anywhere as a letter, save the brief superscription written in imitation of 1st Pet. i. 1. "James ... to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion." Imagine the mode of delivery! Nor is it called forth by any special emergency. There is an allusion to false doctrine. It is the heresy (!) of "justification by faith apart from works." But the writer is no more conscious of contradicting Paul than is Luke in describing Paul"s apostleship and gospel. He merely impersonates the "bishop of bishops" addressing Christendom at large, deprecating the loquacity of the "many teachers,"
and commending the "wisdom" of a "good life" instead. There is protest against oppression. But it is only the oppression of the poor by the rich in the Christian brotherhood. He returns to this subject con amore.
Evidently the church of his age is characterized by worldliness both of thought and conduct, among clergy and laity. But all colour of region or period is wanting. Take 1st Peter, subst.i.tute the head of the Jerusalem succession for the head of the Roman, remove the Pauline doctrine, the traces of Jesus and his gospel of Son ship, remove the special references to local conditions and particular emergencies, leaving only moral generalities, and the result will be not unlike the Epistle of James. The author has heard something of Paulinism, has read Hebrews (Jas. ii. 21-25; v. 10), and imitated 1st Peter (Jas. i. 1, 18, 21; iv.
6 f.; v. 20). Strong arguments have even been advanced to prove that he was not a Christian at all. He probably was, if only from his literary connection with the above-named earlier writings, and the influence exerted by his own on Hermas (Rome, 120-140), and perhaps Clement (Rome, 95). But as for connection with the historic Jesus--"Elijah" is his example of the man of prayer (v. 13-18), and "Job" and "the prophets" his "example of suffering and patience" (v. 10 f.). Hebrews can show more of the influence of Jesus than this (Heb.
v. 7 f., xii. 2-4). Like Hermas (who, however, does not even mention the name of Jesus) "James" thinks of Him simply as "the Lord of glory,"
without raising the question how He came to be such.
Apart from the superscription, whose object is only to clothe the homily with the authority of a name revered throughout the "catholic" church, there is nothing to connect James with Syria rather than any other region outside Paul"s mission-field. Even Palestine might be its place of origin if the date were late enough to account for the Greek style.
At all events it comes first to our knowledge at Rome. There is some reason to think that Clement of Rome (A.D. 95), whose moralizing is of a similar type, has been directly influenced by James. If so we have in James, Clement and Hermas a series ill.u.s.trative of the decline at Rome of the Pauline gospel of conscious revelation and inspiration toward the hum-drum levels of mere "catholic" catechetics.
With every allowance for differences among critics as to date and origin of the non-controversial epistles of the sub-apostolic age, it is easy to see that the resistless march of events is taking up and accomplishing Paul"s effort and prayer for the unity of the two branches of the Church. One great event of this period, which for us stands out with startling vividness upon the pages of history, is curiously without trace or reflection in this literature. We search the New Testament in vain for the slightest allusion (outside the writings directly or indirectly derived from Palestine itself) to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the consequent cessation of Jewish national life and temple ceremonial. The remoteness of the writers with whom we are dealing both in time and national interest from the affairs of Jerusalem is not the only cause. The fate of the temple had no effect to weaken the types of Judaism with which the church of the sub-apostolic age had to contend.
The Pharisaic legalism of the synagogue became only the stronger when the hollow Sadducean priesthood collapsed, and temple ceremonial became simply a ceremonial on paper, the affair no longer of priest and Levite, but of scribe and Pharisee. So also with the denationalized Judaism of the Dispersion, a more insidious danger for early converts from heathenism than the stricter, legalistic type. The crushing of the nationalistic rebellion, the temporary suppression of the war-party, the Zealots, only strengthened and promoted Pharisaism, and the Dispersion was scarcely affected by the losses of the war. When Jerusalem and the temple fell, temple and city had become entirely superfluous factors to both parties in the great strife of church versus synagogue. Hebrews knows of a type of Judaism which is formidable by reason of the appeal of its ordinances of angels and its sacerdotal system written in a book of acknowledged divine authority. But the characteristic point is that in Hebrews, as truly as in Barnabas and Justin Martyr, it is only the prescription and not the practice which is in question. But for the fact that the "new testament" of Heb. ix. 15 is still unwritten, its controversy might properly be described as a battle of books.
On the other hand the pressure of persecution without, combined with the disappearance of creative leadership within, is visibly forcing the independent provinces of Christendom toward organic unity under the principle of apostolic authority. First Peter is the first and greatest evidence of this tendency to union promoted by external pressure.
Hebrews and James follow as ill.u.s.trative of the need felt for maintaining the standards both of doctrine and of morals at their full height. Christianity must not be thought of as on a level with Judaism, it is the final and universal revelation. It must not be practised half-heartedly, with "double-mindedness," nor in vain philosophizing and professions belied by deeds. It must be obeyed as a new and royal law, the mirror of divine perfection.
If, then, we turn from these evidences of general conditions in church and empire to the inward dangers revealed by the writings against heresy, we shall see how this disruptive influence, already distinctly apprehended in Paul"s later writings, makes itself more and more strongly felt, and in more and more definite form, with Ephesus and the churches of Asia as its chief breeding-place.
The Pastoral Epistles in their present form cannot be dated much before the time when they begin to be used by Ignatius and Polycarp (110-117).
Indeed some phrases (perhaps editorial additions) seem to imply a still later date, as when in 1st Tim. vi. 20, Timothy is warned against the "ant.i.theses of miscalled Gnosis," as if with direct reference to Marcion"s system of this t.i.tle. Their avowed purpose is to counteract the inroads of heresy, and the remedy applied is ecclesiastical authority and discipline. Far more of Paul"s inspired gospel of Son ship and liberty, far more of his conception of the redemption in Christ as a triumph over the spiritual world-rulers of this darkness, is found in 1st Peter and Hebrews than here. Nothing appears of Paul"s broad horizon, his spirit of missionary conquest, his devotion to the unity of Jew and Gentile in their common access to the Father in one Spirit.
There is no trace of the great Pauline doctrines of the conflict of flesh and spirit, the superseding of the dispensation of Law by the dispensation of Grace, the Adoption, the Redemption, the Inheritance.
The attention is turned wholly to local conditions, maintenance of the transmitted doctrine and order, resistance to the advance of "vain talk," "Jewish fables," "foolish questionings, genealogies and strifes about the Law," which go hand in hand with moral laxity. In short the outlook and temper are those of the Epistle of James, while the remedy is that of Acts and the Epistles of Ignatius. The Paul who here speaks is not the missionary and mystic, but the shrewd ecclesiastic. There is only too much evidence to show that in the Pauline mission-field the remedy resorted to against the licence in thought and action which threatened decadence and dissolution after apostolic inspiration had died out, was the religion of authority, doctrinal and disciplinary, not the religion of the Spirit. Ecclesiastical appointees take the place as teachers and defenders of the faith of those who had been the inspired apostles and prophets of its extension.
And on the other side are the false teachers. They are of Jewish character in their doctrine, aspiring to be "teachers of the Law" though really ignorant of its meaning. The worst of them are actual Jews (t.i.t.
i. 10), which implies that some were not. Moreover the type of doctrine is still less like the Pharisaism of the synagogue than the "philosophy and vain deceit" rebuked by Paul at Colossae. There is similar distinction of meats (treated in 2nd Tim. iv. 1-5 as a doctrine of "seducing spirits and demons"), and a prohibition of wine and marriage.
There is side by side with this ascetic tendency one equally marked toward libertinism and love of money (2nd Tim. iii. 1-9). Both phases remind us of the "concision" of Paul"s later letters. But besides the larger development new features appear of h.e.l.lenistic rather than Jewish type. The new doctrine of the resurrection as something "past already"
is more closely connected with the Pauline mysticism, the present union of the believer with the life of Christ "hid in G.o.d," than with the Jewish idea of return to earth in resuscitated flesh. The Paulinist of the Pastorals is already foreshadowing the great conflict of Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus against those who "denied the resurrection,"
perverting (as the fathers allege) the meaning of Paul"s saying, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of G.o.d" (_cf._ 2nd Pet. iii. 16).
And the Pastorals tend toward the un-Pauline doctrine soon to be formulated in the "catholic" church: "I believe in the resurrection of the _flesh_." Again the false doctrine now distinctly avows itself a form of Gnosis. "They profess that they know G.o.d, but by their works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." And our Paulinist"s remedy is the traditional doctrine, the "pattern of sound words," the "deposit" of the Church teacher, more especially the whole-some words, "even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to G.o.dliness." Thus even the rich, if they do good, and become "rich in good works" will "lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come."
We have only to place these pseudo-Pauline writings side by side with the Epistles of John and Ignatius to recognize the advance of the heresy which soon declared itself as Gnostic Doketism, with the Jew Cerinthus at Ephesus as its princ.i.p.al exponent. Moreover this steadily increasing inward danger of the Pauline mission-field, a danger not merely sporadic like the outbursts of persecution, but constant and increasing, is forcing the two great branches of the Christian brotherhood together on the basis of "catholicity" and the "apostolic" tradition. Between the churches of the aegean and that of Rome, where both parties stand on neutral ground, there are exchanged generous and sympathetic a.s.surances of essential unity of doctrine in the great outbreak of persecution in 85-90. Among the Pauline churches themselves there is an irresistible reaction against the vagaries and moral laxity of heretical teaching toward "apostolic" tradition and ecclesiastical authority. It appears with almost startling vividness in the Pastoral Epistles, and meets its answer from without, perhaps from Rome, perhaps from Syria, in the homily dressed as an encyclical called the Epistle of James. It is not hard to foresee what sort of Christian unity is destined to come about.
Nevertheless the creative spirit and genius of Paul was to find expression in one more splendid product of Ephesus before the Roman unity was to be achieved.--But before we take up the writings of the great "theologian" of Ephesus we must trace the growth in Syria and at Rome of the Literature of the Church Teacher and Prophet.
PART III
THE LITERATURE OF CATECHIST AND PROPHET
CHAPTER VI
THE MATTHaeAN TRADITION OF THE PRECEPTS OF JESUS
As we have seen in our study of the later literature addressed to, or emanating from, the Pauline mission-field, the church teacher and ecclesiastic who there took up the pen after the death of Paul had scarcely any alternative but to follow the literary model of the great founder of Gentile Christianity. Inevitably the typical literary product of this region became the apostolic letter, framed on the model of Paul"s, borrowing his phraseology and ideas, when not actually embodying fragments from his pen and covering itself with his name. Homilies are made over into "epistles." Even "prophecy," to obtain literary circulation, must have prefixed epistles of "the Spirit" to the churches; and when at last a gospel is produced, this too is accompanied, as we shall see, by three successive layers of enclosing "epistles."
At the seat of "apostolic" Christianity it was equally inevitable that the literary products should follow a different model. Here, from the beginning, the standard of authority had been the commandment of Jesus.
Apostleship had meant ability to transmit his teaching, not endowment with insight into the mystery of the divine purpose revealed in his cross and resurrection. "The gospel" was the gospel _of_ Jesus. The letters of Paul, if they circulated at all in Syria and Cilicia at this early time, have had comparatively small effect on writers like Luke and James. At Rome the case was somewhat different. Here Pauline influence had been effectually superimposed upon an originally Jewish-Christian stock. The Roman Gospel of Mark, accordingly, has just the characteristics we should expect from this Petro-Pauline community.
Antioch, too, though at the disruption over the question of table-fellowship it took the side of James, Peter, and Barnabas against Paul, had always had a strong Gentile element. But Jerusalem, the church of the apostles and elders, with its caliphate in the family of Jesus, and its zeal for Jewish inst.i.tutions and the Law, was the pre-eminent seat of traditional authority. No other gospel, oral or written, could for a moment compare in its eyes with its own cherished treasury of the precepts of Jesus. Its own estimate of itself as conservator of orthodoxy, and custodian of the sacred deposit, vividly reflected from the pages of Hegesippus, was increasingly accepted by the other churches. "James" and "Jude" were probably not the real names of the writers of these "general" or "catholic" epistles; but they show in what direction men looked when there was need to counteract a widespread tendency to moral relaxation and vain disputations, or to demoralizing heresy.
We have also seen how inevitable was the reaction after Paul"s death, even among his own churches, toward a historic standard of authority.
Even more marked than the disposition to draw together in fraternal sympathy under persecution, is the reliance shown by the Pastoral Epistles on "health-giving words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1st Tim. vi. 3), and on a consolidated apostolic succession as a bulwark against the disintegrating advance of heresy. In (proconsular) Asia early in the second century there is an unmistakable and sweeping disposition to "turn to the word handed down to us from the beginning"
(_Ep. of Polyc._, vii.) against those who were "perverting the sayings of the Lord to their own l.u.s.ts." The ancient "word of prophecy" and the former revelations granted to apostolic seers were also turned to account by men like Papias and the author of 2nd Peter against those who "denied the resurrection and judgment."
This Papias of Hierapolis, the friend and colleague of Polycarp, had undertaken in opposition to "the false teachers, and those who have so very much to say," to write (probably after the utter destruction of the community of "apostles, elders, and witnesses" at Jerusalem in 135), _an Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord_. He based the work on authentic tradition of the Jerusalem witnesses, two of whom (Aristion, and John "the Elder") were still living at the time of his inquiries. In fact, this much debated "John the Elder," clearly distinguished by Papias from John the "disciple of the Lord," may be identified, in our judgment, with the John mentioned by Eusebius and Epiphanius midway in the succession of "Elders" of the Jerusalem church between A.D. 62 and 135.
Epiphanius dates his death in 117. Papias gives us practically all the information we have regarding the beginnings of gospel literature. He may have known all four of our Gospels. He certainly knew Revelation and "vouched for its trustworthiness," doubtless against the deniers of the resurrection and judgment. He "used testimonies" from 1st John, and probably the saying of Jesus of John xiv. 2; but he seems to have based his _Exposition_ on two gospels only, giving what he had been able to learn of their history from travellers who reported to him testimonies of "the elders." Papias" two gospels were our Matthew and our Mark, whose differences he reconciled by what the Jerusalem elders had reported as to their origin. Matthew, according to these authorities (?), represented in its Greek form a collection of the Precepts of the Lord which had formerly been current in the original Aramaic, so that its circulation had of course been limited to Palestine. The original compiler had been the Apostle Matthew. Various Greek equivalents of this compilation had taken its place where Aramaic was not current. Thus Papias, in explicit dependence on "the Elder" so far as Mark is concerned, but without special designation of his authority for the statement regarding Matthew. It is even possible that his representation that the primitive Matthew was "in the Hebrew tongue" may be due to rumours whose real starting-point was nothing more than the _Gospel of the Nazarenes_, a product of _c._ 110-140 which misled many later fathers, particularly Jerome. We cannot afford, however, to slight the general bearing of testimony borne by one such as Papias regarding the origins of gospel composition, and particularly the two branches into which the tradition was divided. For Papias had made diligent inquiry.