Studies in Biblical and Patristic Criticism: Or Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 9781463211752

Citation preview

At.

/

""

«•"

¿ > -

y

'

s

V r" p

.. ií 0 ,i K v

r ¡f.»

111**'

ì

'

>r •o

o

r--

,í; 'lis540 >7 . i « v%. /

-.'i,

j * . ..A C ^ 'i a -i, Ö -3? «T h.

f ¡

X,

--»

'

•e-.. M , W. M \\

-

O/ • %

Í*

'

O' -

-y'S

?ï- ?'

O"

t

Studies in Biblical and Patristic Criticism

Studies in Biblical and Patristic Criticism OR STUDIA BIBLICA ET ECCLESIASTICA

VOLUME 4 BY

E. L. HICKS W. M . RAMSAY F. C. CONYBEARE F. W. BUSSELL E. W. WATSON

GORGIAS PRESS

2006

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2006 The special contents of this edition are copyright rjmos and rpo6eap.ia does not agree with the details of Roman law.

Even when he is speaking to the

Romans of vlodto-ia, the word reminds me rather of Greek than of Roman antiquities.

No word is more common in

Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic time: the idea, like the word, is native Greek. But (4) the moral teaching of St. Paul takes up into itself some of the best thoughts of Greek philosophy.

The very

language of Stoicism has lent itself to his service.

I need

say the less on this head, because of the careful and sympathetic treatment it has received from Lightfoot in a famous Appendix to his Philippians.

He rightly discards the legend which

brought the Apostle and Seneca into personal contact.

There

is no reason to suppose that St. Paul had read a page of any Stoic treatise. 1

Ideas, like germs, are in the air, and they only

E r n s t Curtius, in the paper a l r e a d y referred to, mentions also

xaii>ftt/

( P h i l . i v . 4 ) ; ttxpTjfioi (iv. 8) ; the A t t i c s a l t of Col. iv. 6 ; t h e idea of measure in 2 Cor. x. 13. an'ichauung.'

A l l this, betrays, he says, ' den A n h a u c h liellenischer L e b e n s -

Si. Paul

and

Hellenism.

9

await a suitable host, to live and take effect. I know not how much Mr. Ruskin has ever read of Comte : Lut I know that some of his Oxford lectures, when I heard them, seemed inspired by all that is Lest in the Positive Ethics.

Nor can I

ever read i Cor. iv. 8, without being reminded of Stoic phrases about the philosopher-king. (5) W e

pass

exposition.

Here

from language

and ideas to method of

a l s o — I speak with

deference—Renan

appears to exaggerate grossly when he says, ' His mode of arguing is strange in the extreme.

He certainly knew

nothing of the logic of the Peripatetics. anything but Aristotelian;

His syllogism is

on the contrary, his dialectic

comes nearer to that of the Talmud.'

I t may be prepos-

session, but I find in St. Paul much to remind me of Aristotle. I never read I Cor. xiii, without thinking of the description of the virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics

St. Paul's way of

arguing also—making point by point, and covering his whole ground, meeting objections by anticipation, and assuming the questions of a supposed antagonist—recalls to me the method of Aristotle.

I know that his style when most rhetorical

never reaches the formal and even grandiose manner of the Epistle to the Hebrews: but his method of exposition is really Greek.

I f any one doubts this, and desires to make St. Paul's

method still Hebraic, let him compare the Pauline Epistles with those of St. John or St. James.

The latter circle round

certain ideas; advance is made with no apparent logical sequence.

St. Paul's argument is capable of obvious and

minute analysis 2 .

I would only point further to the syste-

matic classification of moral obligations in Romans xii, or in Ephesians and Colossians, as being quite Hellenic in manner. (6) St. Paul's sympathy with Hellenism is shown by his 1 St. Paul'» ethical teaching has quite an Hellenic ring It is (1) philosophical, as resting on a definite principle, viz. our new life in Christ, and (2) it is logical, as classifying virtues and duties according to some intelligible principle. 3 I should say that this passage was composed before Professor Ramsay's Church in the Boman Empire came into my hands.

Si. Paul

IO

method of travel.

and

W i t h quite a Greek instinct he prefers to

keep in sight of the sea. attraction

Hellenism.

The great sea-ports have

for h i m — A n t i o c h , Troas, Thessaloniea,

Corinth, Ephesns.

an

Athens,

He never stays in the villages, or even

the minor towns, where

Hellenic influence is feeble:

he

pushes on to the larger towns of the Roman system, that is, where Hellenism is strong.

More and more he feels impelled

to do so by a Divine Voice within.

W h e n he visits Europe

for the first time and lands at Neapolis. he never stops until he gets to Philippi, because i t ' is the chief town of that part of Macedonia and a colony.'

This practice of St. Paul is finely

illustrated by Prof. Ram&ay in his Church hi the Roman Empire. WTe had all thought that Lystra, a scene of St. Paul's earlier labours, was an out-of-the-way, uncultivated town.

W e must

deem it so no more : it was an important city, and a Roman colony, a centre of Graeco-Roman culture.

Hence its attraction

for the Apostle. (7) I pass to the growth of St. Paul's ideas. a growth took place few now would deny. a change, but a development.

That such

I do not mean

The topics of his Epistles, the

controversies that successively engaged his mind, show w h a t that

development was.

First came the question of the

universality of the Gospel, and the equality of races within the Church.

In fighting for this principle the Apostle was,

in fact, working out a fundamental idea of Hellenism, which had

never yet been realized, but

which

was to

find

its

realization in a glorious and divine manner, in a kingdom not of earth but of heaven, in a city whose builder

and

maker is God. The second great topic that engaged him was the doctrino of the Person of Christ. and each earlier Epistle.

This had underlain all his teaching, B u t now it assumes a prominent

place, as in Phil. ii. and Col. i - i i i : and its bearings upon human life and hope becomes of absorbing interest.

B u t here again,

the language which enables St. Paul to scale these heights of thought, and to set forth, once and for ever, the doctrine of

St. Paul

and

Hellenism.

the Incarnation in its various aspects, is the language of Hellenism.

Greek

thought

had

provided

for

St. Paul

a vocabulary, and a set of ideas as well as phrases, wherein to express his doctrine — a doctrine in no wise borrowed from Hellenic thought, but which could hardly be made intelligible to the minds of his time, or to our own minds to-day, unless Greek thought had prepared the human mind for such grand and far-reaching ideas 1 : (TVI'OTITIKOS

o

yap

(f>i\6a$sim).

O t h e r P a u l i n e w o i d s i n v i t e a t t e n t i o n from a similar point of view :

aufpia, fvuiois,

em-jvaitris, fcvvtois^ aitrOtjuts, 5iavoia, tppuvrjais, k r.A.

.S7. Paîtl

and

Hellenism.

tion of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone.' Here is the first germ of the Be Cimtate Bei. We reach here the climax of the Apostle's life. Wisely does the author of the Acts drop the curtain at this point. All else was but the epilogue to the great drama. The theology of St. Paul was now complete ; his ideas had attained their full orb. There remained nothing more than to organize, to elaborate discipline, to direct and advise. These cares occupy the Pastoral Epistles. May I close with three general remarks ? i . Let us beware of post-dating the influence of Hellenism on Christian thought. I felt that this error leally underlay the otherwise brilliant Hibbert Lectures of Dr. Hatch. The influence of Hellenism began in fact with the first preaching of the Gospel ; and St. Paul is the foremost representative of the process. That influence was of course indirect and unconscious, and did not involve any deliberate adoption of Hellenic practices 1 : but it had been a leaven working in the Church from the first. Then later, in the fourth century, when the fabric of Graeco-Roman civilization was crumbling to its fall, the Church alone was left to rescue from that ruin 1 We may therefore dismiss the crude suggestion of Prof. P . G i r d n e r (Tke Oil'jin of the hold's Supper, 1893), that St. Paul borrowed the idea of the Kucliarist from the Eleusinian Mysteries", which lie may have learned about at Corinth. The writer simply ignores the testimony of the Maik-tradition to the primitive origin of the Lord's Supper, and he also mistakes the essential features of the Eleusinia. These centred in the visit of Iacchos to Demeter and K o r è (this formed the nofjuiTj', and in the mystery-play which followed (TO Spw^itva, hence the UpocpavTys). See also Gustav Anricli, Das antiie

Mysterienwesen

in teinem

Etvjla^s

auf dm, Christeiituin

(1894), p. iii n.

The

value of Anrich's essay is chiefly negative. We are not to exaggerate the extent of Gentile admixture in Christian usage, nor date such accretions too early. H e rightly i ^ i s t s (p. 106) that Hellenic worship consisted of ritual acts, wheieas Christian worship g a v e the chief place to prayer, praise, and instruction. H e points out that it was mainly in connexion with the sacraments, because they involved ceremonial acts, that Hellenic usages and beliefs found opportunity to fasten themselves on to the Christian tradition. Tliis tendency, which developed by degrees, none will deny ; see the Abbé

Duche&ue, Les Origines

(ht Culte

Chrétien.

Si. Paul

and

Hellenism.

13

much that humanity could ill afford to l o s e S w i f t l y therefore and surely, and with no mere blind instinct, during that age of disquiet and change, did the Church take over and consecrate to diviner uses whatever she could of the art, the letters, the ritual

of the older world.

W e may indeed confess that her

task was most difficult and delicate; we may complain that it was unskilfully done ; that in art she borrowed too little; in ceremonial and in metaphysics overmuch.

B u t I am only

concerned to point out here, that this assimilation of Hellenism by the Church, this sympathy with the old Hellenic world had been a reality all along, and was involved in the very fact of the Gospel coming to the western world in the language of Greece. 2. I t is vain to regret a process so inevitable, a development so natural to the human mind.

I t is irrational to appeal from

the Nicene Creed to the Sermon on the Mount. For Christianity needs to be expressed in the language, and therefore in the t h o u g h t and phrase, of mankind at whatever particular date. The t h o u g h t and phrase of the Greek world of the fourth century were not the same as of I'alestine in the first, nor are they the same as our own.

A n d yet, as a matter of fact, when

we want to understand the metaphysical and moral bearings of Christian doctrine, if we turn to Athanasius and Chiysostom, how fresh and modern they are !

How significant the philo-

Be Incamatione Verbi, exegesis of the Horn ¡/¡ex.

sophy of the ethical

how practical the sober,

3. Perhaps one of the greatest needs of the Church in our day is that its teachers should learn the method of St. P a u l ; should learn how to enunciate the Gospel in the phrase and ideas

of

modern

endeavoured

life.

For the educated this

by many, and

freshness and depth than

by none with by

Robert

has

been

more wonderful

Browning:

witness

his Death in the Desert, his Easter Day, and very much beside. For the industrial classes it certainly has not been done, save very partially, and chiefly outside of the Chureli. 1

B u t it must

This is v e r y strikingly p u t in a lecture by H a r n a c k , on S t . Augu.stine.

14

Si. Paid and

Hellenism.

be done, and can best be done by men of learning and thought. For scholarship need not lessen their sympathy with others, and culture should give them an imaginative insight into conditions not their own. The Gospel needs translating into the language of the masses ; it must be brought within their range of ideas, must at least understand their prepossessions, must be recommended by illustrations taken boldly from their manner of life. This was St. Paul's method ; it is worth

adoption to-day : Toit iram yeyora vavra, Ira navrm nras atoao> (l Cor. ix. 22).

II. THE 'GALATIA' OF ST. PAUL AND THE 'GALATIC TERRITORY' OF ACTS. [W. DR.

SANDAY

question.

M.

RAMSAY.]

asks me to write a paper on the Galatian

It is difficult to do so within moderate compass,

and it would be absurd to do so without referring to the counter-arguments or assertions of critics (Dr. Schiirer in

Theologische Litteraturztg. 1893, Sept. 30, p. 506, correcting his article in Jahrl.f. Protestant. Tkeologie, 1893, p. 471 ; Dr. Chase in Expositor, Dec. 1893. and May, 1894 ; Dr. Zockler in Theologische Stvdien mid Kritiken, 1894, pp. 5 1 - 1 0 2 ) I t is therefore necessary to use a move controversial tone than is pleasant to me, and to speak of some elementary points at disproportionate length, because

the

controversy concerns

especially the fundamental facts and ideas upon which the whole theory rests. I f I have complied with this request, it is not because I have the hope of convincing any whose minds are already made up that the South-Galatian theory is inadmissible and impossible on grounds of grammar, or of geography, or of history. But I ask an unprejudiced hearing in the confidence that those who begin the investigation and weigh the arguments 1 A s the distinctive nomenclature use1! in my book has been adopted as convenient by two critic*, B r . Chase and Dr. Zockler, it will be u-.ed 111 this article : ' North G a l a t i a ' will denote the territory permanently occupied by the three Galatian tribes in the third century B.C.,' South G a l a t i a ' will denote the parts of Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and I«auria, which wcie included under the rule of the Roman governor of the province Galatia, and the two opposing views will be designated as ' the North-Galatian theory' and ' the SouthGalatian theory.'

16

The ' Galatia ' of St. Paul

and

w i t h o u t that strong (all the stronger because

unconscious)

bias g i v e n b y frequent repetition for years of a book familiar as Acts,

w i l l see t h a t i h e

South-Galatian

so

theory

alone makes Acts intelligible and i n t e l l i g e n t ; and these will be a g r o w i n g number as time goes on. O n e difficulty which faces me is that the

North-Galatian

theory is professedly based on the view t h a t Acta is full of ' gaps in the narrative,' i. e. omissions that offend against our sense of w h a t is r i g h t in a history.

H e n c e it avails not to

prove t h a t the N o r t h - G a l a t i a n theory attributes an irrational omission to Acts:

one more g a p does not dismay the theorist

who is already impressed with the number of gaps.

I n time,

however, the principle will become recognized even in t h e criticism of Acts (as it is in all extra-Biblical criticism) t h a t the interpreter who is to make a n y progress must start w i t h the belief that his author was rational, and must prefer the rational theory to the theory of irrational gaps. historian of a g r e a t

movement

The concise

m a y dismiss ten years in

a breath and devote a chapter to one step in his subject; b u t his silence is part of his method and as eloquent as his speech B u t any one can

hold the N o r t h - G a l a t i a n

theory

who

is

ready to help it out with the g a p - t h e o r y . i.

ANCIENT

OPINION.—Asterius,

bishop

of Amaseia

in

Pontus, A.D. 401, explains the expression in A c t s x v i i i . 23 rtjv TaKaTiKijv pvyias

\a-q(rii 'Ico tret

eweaxatSeicfiro) Ttjs rjyepLovias (Ti/3epiou)

5 Kaicrapos ¡3aaiXtias 'Pco/xaiW /cat 'HpaJSou roC viav 'Hpd)8ou6 os [iji']

fiaaiXevs

r r j s F a A i A a i a s ' ' (i> [ e i w e a - ]

KatSeKara) rijs ap\rjs avrov. FIAJY

'Apey

8

fj.rjvos T J T I S rju

Kal rfj

EIXAS

Kal

upo1

cvvta KaXav-

WE^TRRIJ

iv

b

Lu

3.1 23'

inrarda

Memoriae quae fuerunt [de Christo] coram Pontio Pilato [praeside Iudaeae], In

anno

octavo

Graecorum10,

decimo9

imperii

Caesaris

regis

et Herodis filii Herodis, qui erat rex

Galilaeorum, i n nono decimo imperii eius et

ante

quam octo kalendarum Amu, quod in vicesimo quinto 1 The words rendered a foav might also = rd ytvuiiera. F H have npaxQivra ; C has & iirpaxOrjOav. 3 j8 adds TOV ^YEFIUVOS TTJS 'IovSaiay. 2 J3 IJFFAV ntpl Xptorov. 4 irepi T. AVAAT. is absent from the Greek; only D adds (Is RTY amKa9i)\tMiv which might underlie the A r m . 5 Xpiorov] C adds a prologue beginning eyaj 'Avavtas. Also Copt.; but A D E F G H I agree with A r m . in omitting it. 6

Kal "H. r. vl. 'H. cum E Lat.

' 'Api'7] The A r m . month wplrij. according to the year.

7

TTJ it.

e. xa\. cum A Lat.

might answer to any Western month

A l l the Greek sources except A add 'AvpiWiwv after

KaXmiSiv. Latin Aprilie. s

* T h e Greek codices 1) E have ¿/cTtu/taiStKaxy. The Latin codices and Coptic have ivvtaKcuhtucny with a. The rest of the Greek codices have

irtvTt/caidt/iaTii;.

10

7 adds Tiberii.

Acta

74 'Povcpov, Kaì

8

Kai

'PovßfXivov1

tv

I.

TU r e r a p r u

Suoli* T)yt\x0viüi< * àpxiepécov

Kaì

Kaia

LCTToprjtTev N1K087J¡xos Kaì

NiK0'5rjfX0S 5,) "Avva («at

Pi lati.

(/cai

uàOos rois TTA£EV

5

Kai "SCp-covi, (tat A a J ö a

A6DI', NtcpdaXip.,

'A\é£avòpos

in quarto anno eius et

duorum principum sacerdotam Iudaeorum, Annae et Caiaphae. domini,

E t quanta post

historiatus 9

crucem et passionem

est Nicodemus quae facta sunt

summis sacerdotum aliisque Iudaeis, Annae et Caiaphae et Simeòni,et Dòkae 1 0 , Iudas, Levi, Nepthalim,

1 'Povif. K. 'Pov0.J Greek A I G C, L a t i n Copt, correspond ; but B has BucevTiavov and E omits entire passage. T h e spelling Rubellinum preserved in the Fasti Siculi is closest to the A r m . a auT)5?] A r m . may also — aurov; E has TTJS airijs ¿Au/nnaSoi; but other sources have rrv.

A ¿yd

I.

i.

avrói s ó ITiXaros' itoLiav

KCLKSW 1

" M a t . g. irpd£ev ; Aiyovaiv AVROI' yórjs (UTLV, KAL I F 34 and ov,TL 3 Saijiociuf t u a p x ¿ K ^ d M e i tcl S a i f u W i a a , Kai i r a i r a Lu. I I . '5aÙTÙ ÙTTOTaVffiTai 11 Lu. i o . Aeyfi avTols È r h À a r o y TOVTO OVK ¿fé[iaTi (KpaWfiv r à Satfiorta, àÀA' rails 6eoìi 4 rw I Cor. 15.

2

»7-

Atyovmv

oi

'lotiSaloi

tu

rTiAaro)"

à£ioCfxei> r ò

orò'

ftiifxaTos 0

Mat. 27. ¡itytOos ai a r e avròv napaa~njvai (Til rov crov 19 and 6. /cai (iKovaaTt avrò G •npofTKaXtaàfj.evo's < 5 riiXaros roùs .Tno. 19. '3'IouSatous7 Aéyet a i r o i y d • t t u ì òvvap-ai fyà) àvì]p s d J n o . 19. ì)y(jià>v /3a 8 o 777. k. ff«] So Latin quia praeses xocat te. Greek ha& order KaXtl at Ò 1Î7. 9 1,1 0 has order KaX. u ¡3 adds rovro or itcttvo. II KartK. usque niXaro/] This agrees best with D : /cari/epagav ai/rov tni ruv ri \aTov Xtyovres. Most sources have KartK. rod rtiAarov Ktyovrts. So also 12 many Latin sources, but not all. 0 has rod IltXaToi/ Xtyovrts. 13 irpaÌK.'] The Arm. word answers rather to 0aaaviarov. 14 ovk tiffi77. au.] The Latin A B C Cur eum praeconù sub voce non ingredi fecitti best answers to the Arm. The Greek sources have ttttKtvoas or tKa\taas tlatXOeîv. 0

15

y om. illud.

Acta

78

Pilait.

I.

2.

Kai yàp 6 Kovpawp dia ' uov ' b

Ta

ijiaTia

CLVTÛV

XiyovTts" 8o|a c il» 6t|/iarois 10 " , , , orofiaTi Kupiou.

(ÎTTÎD

3.

«aörj-

'IouôatW i-KpaÇov, avrS>v8 '

aXXoi ôè

ÉPTRPNRRÔEV

avrov0

eùXoyr]jj.eVos os ? p x e i

' Lu. 19. 38-

cursor quum vidit ilium, adoravit illum, et faciale quod habebat [in manu], expandit in terra et dixit: Domine, vocat te praeses. et dicit illi : Quid

Vocavit cursorem Pilatus,

fecüfi

istud ? Dicit cursor : Quo tempore missi sumus in Ierusalem ad Alexandium, vidi illum sedentem

super

asinum et pueri Iudaeorum clamabant habentes ramos in manibus suis, et alii sternebant vestimenta sua ante illum, et dicebant : Gloria in excelsis, beatus qui venis in nomine Domini. 1

aura)] So Latin.

Greek omits.

h roC rrpaiKaì el8 airoKTeivat; 9 Atyovcriv 10" pjkov i\ov aaßßärio OtpaitevH. 5 Atyei o ritAaros' Tifpt KaXäv tpyaiv11 OeXovcriv12 OMOKTfivai13 ; (AtyovTiv air" rai) u . Iussit Pilatus multitudinem foris eiicere, absque duodecim [viris 13 qui dicebant quoniam non est natus ex fornicatione] ; et Iesum iussit sequestrate. Et dicit [eis]: Propter quam himriam volunt occidere [Iesum] ? Dicunt [Pilato] : Zelum habent, quoniam in sabbato carat. Dicit Pilatus: [ergo] propter bona opera volunt occidere [eum] ? 2 0 om. dmv. ' (9 om. KOI. I SuBfxa] All Bources add ruiv clirovraiv on ov ytytvvijTcu 4* nopvtias except (' which varies it thus excepto XII viros qui veritatem dicebant. 4 0 adds avSpatv rwv fliri'iVTojv on ov ytytvvrjrai Ik vopveias. *ai r. 'I17. a 1 y \ H. tr 28. KAI Aeyei avrois ¡laprvpa (\CÜ TOP T)\IOV OTL

ovèeixiav àp.apriav eópicricu e? b 'Air€KPI6T)CTAC 5

KaKOTTOiòs4

iff

OÙTV iyovruiv I^ovcriav a em yijs. CAPUT I V .

AeyoverLV oi 'IovSaioi' eiirtv on ¿yen b KaTaXuw TOP b Jno. 2. 1 * '9> 2°caoi'C TOUTO^ Kai iv Tpio'ti' ^(x^pais iyeipa Of £y Ttao-apaKoi'Ta c j j a t 2() 5 Kai ?Teaii» uKoSo|x^di] ; Mar. * > « >4- 58Ae'yei o ritXaros' Tii/a vao'v ; Xiyova-iv oi IouSaioi' or u>Kobojiy)v* irepl Oepattfias

tariv

'AAA'

Kal nepl

¡3f/3rj-

XaJo-fiBj Aos

"¡KOVOV Kal irpotranroi'

a

"Jno j.

e8i8a-

ovrois

ftaip.ovas b

¿yfvvrjdT]v, /

Kai

Troia

iv vafifiaTto*. ovx

Kal

' I o v h a i i a v wapairrjbriv etrrtvFYX&Si;EV TT) n

«xö> rtra KaradiKov

€(7Tt Bapaßßas,

a-TT\KOvra (top

yLverai

' 1 rjtrovv)

Kai tovtov 0

tovs Ae'yet

a v T o l St¡iovrai 1 a . irákiv

5 r i i X a r o s TTpotTKaXeo-apievos anav ort auníOíiá

e/c iropvúas,

ó * Mat

otoa tva

24. b

Jno. 18.

iv t