The Making of the New Testament

All this is cumulative proof that the horizon of the seer of Rev. iv. – xx. is that of Palestine. Its expansion in the introductory Letters of the Spirit to the Churches to include the seven churches of (proconsular) Asia, is as limited in its way as the original. The later writer merely adds the special province where he wishes the 'prophecy' to circulate, with its special interests; there is no real interrelation of the two parts.

It is a problem of great complexity to disentangle the various strands of this strange and fantastic work, certain as it is that we have here a conglomerate whose materials come from various periods. Some elements, such as ch. xi. on the fate of Jerusalem, seem to date in part from before 70; others, such as ch. xviii. on the fate of Rome, show that while originally composed for the circumstances of the reign of Vespasian or Titus, the time has been extended to take in at least the beginning of that of Domitian.26 The author rests mainly upon the Hebrew apocalyptic prophets, such as Ezekiel, Daniel and Enoch, but he has not been altogether inhospitable to such originally Gentile mythology as the doctrine of the seven spirits of God, and the conflict of Michael and his angels with the dragon. He intimates himself that his prophesying had not been confined to one period or one people (x. 11). When he translates the "Hebrew" name of the angel of the abyss, "Abaddon," into its Greek equivalent (ix. 11), or uses Hebrew numerical equivalents for the letters of the name of a man (xiii. 18), it is not difficult to guess that this prophecy had at least its origin in Palestine. In fact, there is no other country where the geographical references hold true, and no other period save that shortly after the overthrow of Jerusalem by Titus, that affords the historical situation here presupposed, when worshipping "the beast and his image" is demanded of the saints by the earthly ruler (Domitian), and the overthrow of the seven-hilled city by one of its own rulers in league with lesser powers is looked forward to as about to avenge the sufferings inflicted on the Jews. As regards this hope of the overthrow of Rome, we know that the legend of Nero's prospective return at the head of hosts of Parthian enemies to recapture his empire gained currency in Asia Minor in Domitian's reign, and this legend is certainly developed in Rev. xiii. and xvii. On the other hand, the author, if he ever came to Asia, did not cease to be a Palestinian Jew. He operates exclusively (after iv. 1) with the materials and interests of Jewish and Jewish-Christian apocalypse. He has no interest whatever in the churches of Asia. He does not betray by one syllable a knowledge even of their existence, to say nothing of their dangers, their heresies, their temptations. He does make it abundantly clear that he is a Christian prophet (x. 7-11), and (to us) almost equally clear that he is not one of the twelve apostles whose names he sees written on the foundation-stones of the New Jerusalem (xxi. 14). But since his prophecy, with all its heterogeneous elements had to do with the final triumph of Messiah, and the establishment of His kingdom, after the overthrow of the power of Satan – since it depicted "the time of the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints and to them that fear thy name," it could not fail to be welcomed by orthodox Christians in (proconsular) Asia. For the churches of Asia were engaged at this time in a vigorous struggle against the heretical deniers of the resurrection and judgment. Only, a mere anonymous prophecy from Palestine could not obtain any authoritative currency in Asia. To be accepted, even among the orthodox, some name of apostolic weight must be attached to it, as we see in the case of the two Epistles of Peter and those of James and Jude. The Epistles of the Spirit to the churches are, then, as truly "letters of commendation" as though they introduced a living prophet and not merely a written prophecy. The John whom they present is not called an apostle for the very simple reason that the visions themselves everywhere refer to their recipient as a 'prophet.' The author of the prologue and epilogue does not disregard the language of his material. As we have seen, he carefully weaves its phraseology into the 'letters.' So with his insertion of the name "John." It occurs nowhere but in i. 1 f., 4, 9 and xxii. 8 f. All these passages, but especially xxii. 8 f., are based upon xix. 9b, 10, adding nothing to the representation but the name "John" and the location "Patmos." In fact, xxii. 6-9 reproduces xix. 9 f., for the most part verbatim, although it is clearly insupposable that the seer of the former passage should represent himself as offering a second time to worship the angel, and as receiving again exactly the same rebuke he had received so shortly before. He who calls himself "John" in xxii. 8 is, therefore, not the prophet of xix. 10. The epilogue itself has apparently received successive supplements, and the prologue its prefix; but he who inserts the name John has done so with caution. He may not have intended to leave open the ambiguity found by Dionysius and Eusebius between the Apostle and the Elder, as a refuge in case of accusation, but he has at least been careful not to transgress the limits of the text he reproduces. The seer spoke of himself as a "prophet" writing from the midst of great tribulation, about the kingdom to follow to those that endured. He had said that he received "true words of God" from an angel who declared "I am a fellow servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus" (i. e. the confession of martyrdom). The prologue, accordingly, describes "John" as a servant of Jesus, who received from an angel the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (i. 1 f.). He is a brother and partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance which are in Jesus. When he comes to Asia it is "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." The spot whence he issues his prophetic message is not located in Ephesus, or in any city where the residents could say, "But the Apostle John was never among us." He resides temporarily (as a prisoner in the quarries?) in the unfrequented island of Patmos. Thence he could be supposed to see "in the Spirit" the condition of affairs in the churches of Asia without inconvenient questions as to when, and how, and why.

We may think, then, of this book of 'prophecy' as brought forth in the vicinity of Ephesus near "the end of the reign of Domitian" (95). But only the enclosing letters to the churches, and the epilogue guaranteeing the contents, originate here at this time. The 'prophecies,' occupied as they are exclusively with the rivalry of Jerusalem and Rome, and the judgment to be executed for the former upon her ruthless adversary, bear unmistakable marks of their Palestinian origin, not only in the historical and geographic situations presupposed, but in the "defiant" Hebraisms of the language, and the avowed translations from "the Hebrew." They are an importation from Palestine like "the sound words, even the words of the Lord Jesus" referred to in the Pastorals. The churches of Asia are feeling the need of apostolic authority against the deniers of the resurrection and the judgment, as much as against the perverters of the Lord's words. Such centres as the homes of the prophesying daughters of Philip at Ephesus and Hierapolis were even more abundantly competent to supply this demand than the other. Agabus will not have been the only Judæan prophet who visited them, especially after the "great tribulation" which befell "those in Judæa." There is nothing foreign to the habit of the times, even in Christian circles, if nameless 'prophecies' from such a source are translated, edited, and given out under cover of commendatory epistles written in the name of "John" at a time when John had indeed partaken both of the tribulation and of the kingdom of Jesus. They would hardly have obtained currency had they not been attributed to an apostle; for a denial of the apostolicity of this book has always deprived it of authority.

On the other hand, the actual (Palestinian) prophet has no such exalted opinion of himself as of those whose names he sees written on the foundation of the walls of the New Jerusalem (xxi. 14). He is not an apostle and does not claim to be. He shows not the faintest trace of any association with the earthly Jesus, and indeed displays a vindictiveness toward the enemies of Israel that has more of the spirit of the imprecatory psalms than the spirit of Jesus. He thinks of Jesus as a king and judge bestowing heavenly rewards upon the martyrs in a manner quite inconsistent with his rebuke of James and John (Mark x. 40). It is a far cry indeed from this to apostleship and personal intimacy with Jesus.

The chief value of Revelation to the student of Christian origins is that by means of its clearly determinable date (Ephesus, 93-95) he can place himself at a point of vantage whence to look not only around him at the conditions of the Pauline churches as depicted in the letters, vexed with growing Gnostic heresy and moral laxity, but also both backward and forward. The backward glance shows Palestine emerging from the horrors of the Jewish war, filled with bitterness against Rome, held down under hateful tyranny and longing for vengeance upon the despot with his "names of blasphemy" and his demands of worship for "the image of the beast" (emperor-worship). Here Jewish apocalyptic (as in 2nd Esdras) and Christian 'prophecy' are closely in accord. Indeed a considerable part of the material of Rev. iv. – xxi., especially in chh. xi. – xii. is ultimately of Jewish rather than Christian origin. What the development of Christian 'prophecy' was in Palestine from apostolic times until the scattering of the church of "the apostles and elders" after the war of Bar Cocheba (135), we can only infer from the kindred Jewish apocalypses and the chiliastic "traditions of the Elders" quoted by Irenæus from Papias. A forward look from our vantage point in Ephesus c. a.d. 95, shows the effects of the Palestinian importation extending down from generation to generation, first in the long chiliastic controversy against the Doketic Gnostics, including Montanist 'prophecy'; secondly, in the growth of a claim to apostolic succession from John.

(1) In the chiliastic controversy for a century the chief bones of contention are the (non-Pauline) doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh (so the Apostles' Creed and the second-century fathers), and that of a visible reign of Christ for a thousand years in Jerusalem. The new form of resurrection-gospel which at about this time begins to take the place of the apostolic of 1st Cor. xv. 3-11, centering upon the emptiness of the sepulchre and the tangibility and food-consuming functions of Jesus' resurrection body, instead of the "manifestations" to the apostles, is characteristic of this struggle against the Greek disposition to spiritualize. Luke and Ignatius represent the attitude of the orthodox, Ignatius' opponents that of those who denied that Jesus was "in the flesh after his resurrection." Revelation, like the "traditions of the Elders," champions the visible kingdom of Messiah in Jerusalem.

(2) In the effort for apostolic authority the writings which came ultimately to represent Asian orthodoxy have all been brought under the name and authority of the Apostle John, although for many decades after the appearance of Revelation, Paul, and not John, remains the apostolic authority to which appeal is made, and although the writings themselves were originally anonymous. There was, indeed, a contributory cause for the growth of this tradition in the accidental circumstance that a Palestinian Elder from whom Papias derived indirect, and Polycarp in all probability direct, traditions, bore also the name of John, and survived until a. d. 117. Still, the main reason why this particular apostolic name was ultimately placed over the Gospel and Epistles of Ephesian Christendom, can only have been its previous adoption to cover the compilation of Palestinian 'prophecies' of a. d. 95.

PART IV

THE LITERATURE OF THE THEOLOGIAN

CHAPTER IX

THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL AND EPISTLES

Asia, as we have come to know it through a succession of writings dating from Colossians-Ephesians (c. 62) down to Papias (145), had come to be the chief scene of mutual reaction between 'apostolic' and Pauline Christianity at the close of the first century. Here at Ephesus had been the great headquarters of Paul's missionary activity. Here he had reasoned daily in the school of one Tyrannus, a philosopher, and had found "many adversaries." Here he had encountered the "strolling Jews, exorcists," and had secured the destruction of an immense mass of books of magic. Here, according to Acts, he predicted the inroads of heresy after his "departure," and here the succeeding literature abundantly witnesses the fulfilment of the prediction. Ephesians and Colossians begin the series, the Pastoral Epistles (c. 90) continue it. Then follow the 'letters to the churches' of Revelation (95) and the Ignatian Epistles (110-117), not to mention those whose origin is uncertain, such as Jude and 2nd Peter.

The Pastorals already make it apparent that even the Pauline churches are not exempt from the inevitable tendency of the age to fall back upon authority. The very sublimity of Paul's consciousness of apostolic inspiration made it the harder for the next generation to assert any for itself. Moreover heresy was growing apace. If even the outward pressure of persecution tended to drive the churches together in brotherly sympathy, still more indispensable would appear the need of traditional standards to maintain the "type of sound doctrine," "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." Without such it would be impossible to check the individualism of errorists who took Paul's sense of personal inspiration and mystical insight as their model, without Paul's sobriety of critical control under the standard of "the law of Christ." It is no surprise, then, to find even at the headquarters of Paulinism early in the second century a sweeping tendency to react toward the 'apostolic' standards. In particular, as Gnostic exaggeration of the Pauline mysticism led continually further toward disregard of the dictates of common morality, and a wider divergence from the Jewish conceptions of the world to come, it was natural that men like Polycarp and Papias should turn to the Matthæan and Petrine tradition of the Lord's oracles, and to the Johannine 'prophecies' regarding the resurrection and judgment.

Had nothing intervened between Gnostics and reactionaries the most vital elements of Paul's gospel might well have disappeared, even at this great headquarters of Paulinism. The Doketists, with their exaggerated Hellenistic mysticism, were certainly not the true successors of Paul. They showed an almost contemptuous disregard for the historic Jesus, a one-sided aim at personal redemption, by mystic union of the individual soul with the Christ-spirit, to the disregard of "the law of Christ," even in some cases of common morality. Paul was characterized by a splendid loyalty to personal purity, to the social ideal of the Kingdom, and to the unity of the brotherhood in the spirit of reciprocal service. On the other hand men like the author of the Pastoral Epistles, Ignatius and Polycarp, with their almost panic-stricken resort to the authority of the past, were not perpetuating the true spirit of the great Apostle. Their reliance was on ecclesiastical discipline, concrete and massive miracle in the story of Jesus, particularly on the point of the bodily – or, as they would have said, the "fleshly" – resurrection. Their conception of his recorded "words," made of them a fixed, superhuman standard and rule, a "new law." Teachers of this type, much as they desired and believed themselves to be perpetuating the "sacred deposit" of Paul, were in reality conserving its form and missing its spirit. Such men would gladly "turn to the tradition handed down," of the Matthæan Sayings, and the Petrine Story. But in the former they would not find reflections of the sense of Son ship. They would find only a supplementary Law, a new and higher set of rules. In the story they would not discover the Pauline view of the pre-existent divine Wisdom tabernacling in man, producing a second Adam, as elder brother of a new race, the children and heirs of God. They would take the mysticism of Paul and bring it down to the level of the man in the street. Jesus would be to them either a completely superhuman man, approximating the heathen demi-god, a divinity incognito; or else a man so endowed with "the whole fountain of the Spirit" as to exercise perpetually and uninterruptedly all its miraculous functions. The story of the cross would be hidden behind the prodigies.

Least of all could the importation of apocalyptic prophecy do justice to the Pauline doctrine of the 'last things.' True, Paul is himself a 'prophet,' thoroughly imbued with the fantastic Palestinian doctrines. He, too, believes in a world-conflict, a triumph of the Messiah over antichrist. More particularly in one of his very earliest epistles (2nd Thessalonians) we get a glimpse into these Jewish peculiarities. But these are always counterbalanced in Paul by a wider and soberer view, which tends more and more to get the upper hand. His doctrine of spiritual union with Christ, present apprehension of "the life that is hid with Christ in God," a doctrine of Greek rather than Hebrew parentage, prevails over the imagery of Jewish apocalypse. In the later epistles he expects rather to "depart and be with Christ" than to be "caught up into the air" with those that are alive and remain at the 'Coming.' So even if Paul did have occasion again and again to defend his Jewish resurrection-doctrine against the Greek disposition to refine it away into a mere doctrine of immortality, his remedy is not a mere falling back into the crudities of Jewish millenarianism. Least of all could he have sympathized with the nationalistic, and even vindictive spirit of Rev. iv. – xxi., with its great battle of Jerusalem helped by Messiah and the angels, against Rome helped by Satan and the Beast. Paul's doctrine of the resurrection of the "body" by "clothing" of the spirit with a "tabernacle" derived "from heaven," his hope of a messianic Kingdom which is the triumph of humanity under a "second Adam," has its apocalyptic traits. It is a victory over demonic enemies, "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places"; but it has the reserve of an educated Pharisee against the cruder forms of Jewish prophecy. It shows the mind of the cosmopolitan Roman citizen and philosophic thinker, not merely that of the Jewish Zealot.

How salutary if Paul himself could have lived to control the divergent elements among his churches, to check the subjective individualism of the Gnostics on the one hand, and the reactionary tendencies of the orthodox on the other. His parting words to his beloved Philippians are sadly appreciative of how needful it was for their sake that he should "abide in the flesh" (Phil. i. 24). Yet there was one thing still more expedient – that he should abide with them in the spirit. And that is just what we find evidenced in the great 'spiritual' Gospel and its accompanying Epistles from Ephesus.

Debate still rages over a mere name, attached by tradition to these writings that themselves bear no name. The titles prefixed by early transcribers attribute them to "John." But they are never employed before 175-180 in a way to even remotely suggest that they were then regarded as written by John, or even as apostolic in any sense. And when we trace the tradition back to its earliest form, in the Epilogue attached to the Gospel (John xxi.) it seems to be no more than a dubious attempt to identify that mysterious figure, the "disciple whom Jesus loved." If, however, we postpone this question raised by the Epilogue, the writings can at least be assigned to a definite locality (Ephesus) and a fairly definite date (c. 105-110), with the general consent both of ancient tradition and of modern criticism. This is for us the important thing, since it enables us to understand their purpose and bearing; whereas even those who contend that they were written by the Apostle John can make little use of the alleged fact. For (1) the little that is known of John from other sources is completely opposed to the characteristics of these writings. They are characterized by a broad universalism, and reproduce the mysticism of Paul. To attribute them to the Pillar of Gal. ii. 9, or the Galilean fisherman of Mark i. 19 and ix. 38, it becomes necessary to suppose that John after migrating to Ephesus underwent a transformation so complete as to make him in reality another man. (2) The meagre possibility that the basis of Revelation might represent the Apostle John becomes more remote than ever. Now it is a curious fact that critics who hold to the much-disputed tradition that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel and Epistles, although these writings make no such claim, and have no affinity with the known character, show as a rule remarkable alacrity to dismiss the claims of Revelation, which positively declares John to have been its author, and has far stronger evidence, both internal and external, in support of the claim, than have either the Gospel or the Epistles. We may prefer the style and doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles, but this playing fast and loose with the evidence can only discredit criticism of this type. (3) The value of the demonstration of Johannine authorship would lie in the fact that we should then have a first-hand witness to the actual life and teaching of Jesus, immeasurably superior to the remote and indirect tradition of the present Synoptic sources. But as a matter of real fact those who maintain the Johannine authorship do not venture to assert any such historical superiority. On the contrary they consider the Synoptic tradition not only historically superior to "John," as respects both sayings and course of events, but they are apt to attribute to this Galilean apostle an extreme of Philonic abstraction, so that he even prefers deliberate "fiction" to fact. Thus the reasoning employed to defend the tradition destroys the only factor which could give it value.

On the other hand it is possible to disregard these secondary disputes, which aim only to increase or diminish the authority of the writings by asserting or denying that they were written by the Apostle John, and to approach the interpretation of them on the basis only of what is really known, accredited both by ancient tradition and by modern criticism. On this basis we can safely affirm that they originated in Ephesus early in the second century, 'spiritualizing' what we have designated 'apostolic' teaching, while at the same time strongly reacting against Doketic and Antinomian heresy. By such a procedure we shall be employing modern critical methods to the highest practical advantage in the interest of genuinely historical interpretation.

Even those who find minute distinctions in style and point of view between the Epistles and Gospel of John will admit that all four documents emanate from the same period, situation, and circumstances, and represent the same school of thought. We shall make no serious mistake, then, if we treat them as written by the same individual, and even as intended to accompany one another. We shall have the example of so high an authority as Lightfoot, who considered 1st John an Epilogue composed to accompany the Gospel in place of the present Epilogue (John xxi.). Moreover the distinctions in the ancient treatment of 1st John and the two smaller Epistles are all subsequent to the attribution of the Gospel and First Epistle to the Apostle, and a consequence of it. For 1st John and the Gospel had always been inseparable, and having no name attached could easily be treated as the Apostle's. But 2nd and 3rd John distinctly declare themselves written by an "Elder"; and in the days when men still appreciated the distinction between an Elder and an Apostle it was felt to be so serious a difficulty that 2nd and 3rd John were put in the class of "disputed" writings. In reality 1st John and the Gospel are just as certainly the work of an "Elder" as 2nd John and 3rd John, though no declaration to that effect is made. Moreover 1st John and the Gospel may safely be treated as from the same author; for such minute differences as exist in style and point of view can be fully accounted for by the processes of revision the Gospel has demonstrably undergone. This is more reasonable than to imagine two authors so extraordinarily similar to one another and extraordinarily different from everybody else.