{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8827/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8827","id":"gutenberg_8827","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8827","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Martin Ward\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n             Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech\n                    Preface and Introductions\n\n                       Third Edition 1913\n                   Public Domain--Copy Freely\n\nThese files were produced by keying for use in the Online Bible.\nProofreading was performed by Earl Melton. The printed edition\nused in creating this etext was the Kregal reprint of the Ernest\nHampden-Cook (1912) Third Edition, of the edition first published\nin 1909 by J. Clarke, London.  Kregal edition ISBN 0-8254-4025-4.\n\nDue to the plans to add the Weymouth footnotes, the footnote\nmarkers have been left in the text and page break indicators.\nOther special markings are words surrounded with \"*\" to indicate\nemphasis, and phrases surrounded with \"<>\" to indicate bold OT\nquotes.  See WEYMOUTH.INT in WNTINT.ZIP for the introduction\nto the text, and information on Weymouth's techniques.\n\nThe most current corrected files can be found on:\n\n        Bible Foundation BBS\n        602-789-7040 (14.4 kbs)\n\nIf any errors are found, please notify me at the above bbs,\nor at:\n\n        Mark Fuller\n        1129 E. Loyola Dr.\n        Tempe, Az. 85282\n        (602) 829-8542\n\n\n----------- Corrections to the printed page ---------------------\n\nIntroduction says personal pronouns referring to Jesus, when spoken\nby other than the author/narrator, are capitalized only when they\nrecognize His deity.  The following oversights in the third edition\nwere corrected in subsequent editions.  Therefore we feel justified\nin correcting them in this computer version.\n\nMt 22:16 Capitalized 'him'.  Same person speaking as in v.15.\n\nMt 27:54 Capitalized 'he'.\n\nJoh 21:20 Capitalized 'his'\n\nHeb 12:6  Capitalized last 'HE' (referring to God).\n\n\n==== changes made to printed page.\n\nLu 11:49 Added closing quote at end of verse as later editions do.\n\nLu 13:6 come > came (changed in later editions)\n\nRo 11:16 it > if (an obvious typesetting error corrected in later editions)\n\n1Co 11:6 out > cut (an obvious typesetting error corrected in later editions)\n\nPhp 4:3 the Word 'book' in 'book of Life' was not capitalized in\n        various printings of the third edition, but it was in later\n        editions.  So we have capitalized it here.\n\n2Ti 1:9  deserts > desserts (misspelling perpetuated in later editions)\n\n\n==== no change made:\n\nEph 6:17 did not capitalize 'word' as in Word of God.\n\n                   PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION\n\n        The Translation of the New Testament here offered to\nEnglish-speaking Christians is a bona fide translation made\ndirectly from the Greek, and is in no sense a revision. The plan\nadopted has been the following.\n\n        1. An earnest endeavour has been made (based upon more\nthan sixty years' study of both the Greek and English languages,\nbesides much further familiarity gained by continual teaching) to\nascertain the exact meaning of every passage not only by the\nlight that Classical Greek throws on the langruage used, but also\nby that which the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures afford;\naid being sought too from Versions and Commentators ancient and\nmodern, and from the ample _et cetera_ of _apparatus grammaticus_\nand theological and Classical reviews and magazines--or rather,\nby means of occasional excursions into this vast prairie.\n\n        2. The sense thus seeming to have been ascertained, the\nnext step has been to consider how it could be most accurately\nand naturally exhibited in the English of the present day; in\nother words, how we can with some approach to probability suppose\nthat the inspired writer himself would have expressed his\nthoughts, had he been writing in our age and country. /1\n\n        3. Lastly it has been evidently desirable to compare the\nresults thus attained with the renderings of other scholars,\nespecially of course witll the Authorized and Revised Versions.\nBut alas, the great majority of even \"new translations,\" so\ncalled, are, in reality, only Tyndale's immortal work a\nlittle--often very litLle--modernized!\n\n        4. But in the endeavour to find in Twentieth Century\nEnglish a precise equivalent for a Greek word, phrase, or\nsentence there are two dangers to be guarded against. There are a\nScylla and a Charybdis. On the one hand there is the English of\nSociety, on the other hand that of the utterly uneducated, each\nof these _patois_ having also its own special, though expressive,\nborderland which we name 'slang.' But all these salient angles\n(as a professor of fortification might say) of our language are\nforbidden ground to the reverent translator of Holy Scripture.\n\n        5. But again, a _modern_ translation--does this imply\nthat no words or phrases in any degree antiquated are to be\nadmitted? Not so, for great numbers of such words and phrases are\nstill in constant use. To be antiquated is not the same thing as\nto be obsolete or even obsolescent, and without at least a tinge\nof antiquity it is scarcely possible that there should be that\ndignity of style that befits the sacred themes with which the\nEvangelists and Apostles deal.\n\n        6. It is plain that this attempt to bring out the sense\nof the Sacred Writings naturally as well as accurately in\npresent-day English does not permit, except to a limited extent,\nthe method of literal rendering--the _verbo verbum reddere_ at\nwhich Horace shrugs his shoulders. Dr. Welldon, recently Bishop\nof Calcutta, in the Preface (p. vii) to his masterly translation\nof the _Nicomachean Ethics_ of Aristotle, writes, \"I have\ndeliberately rejected the principle of trying to translate the\nsame Greek word by the same word in English, and where\ncircumstances seemed to call for it I have sometimes used two\nEnglish words to represent one word of the Greek;\"--and he is\nperfectly right. With a slavish literality delicate shades of\nmeaning cannot be reproduced, nor allowance be made for the\ninfluence of interwoven thought, or of the writer's ever\nshifting--not to say changing--point of view. An utterly ignorant\nor utterly lazy man, if possessed of a little ingenuity, can with\nthe help of a dictionary and grammar give a word-for-word\nrendering, whether intelligible or not, and print 'Translation'\non his title-page. On the other hand it is a melancholy spectacle\nto see men of high ability and undoubted scholarship toil and\nstruggle at translation under a needless restriction to\nliterality, as in intellectual handcuffs and fetters, when they\nmight with advantage snap the bonds and fling them away, as Dr.\nWelldon has done: more melancholy still, if they are at the same\ntime racking their brains to exhibit the result of their\nlabours---a splendid but idle philological _tour de force_ --in\nwhat was English nearly 300 years before.\n\n        7. Obviously any literal translation cannot but carry\nidioms of the earlier language into the later, where they will\nvery probably not be understood; /2 and more serious still is the\nevil when, as in the Jewish Greek of the N T, the earlier\nlanguage of the two is itself composite and abounds in forms of\nspeech that belong to one earlier still. For the N.T. Greek, even\nin the writings of Luke, contains a large number of Hebrew\nidioms; and a literal rendering into English cannot but partially\nveil, and in some degree distort, the true sense, even if it does\nnot totally obscure it (and that too where _perfect_ clearness\nshould be attained, if possible), by this admixture of Hebrew as\nwell as Greek forms of expression.\n\n        8. It follows that the reader who is bent upon getting a\nliteral rendering, such as he can commonly find in the R.V. or\n(often a better one) in Darby's _New Testament_, should always be\non his guard against its strong tendency to mislead.\n\n        9. One point however can hardly be too emphatically\nstated. It is not the present Translator's ambition to supplant\nthe Versions already in general use, to which their intrinsic\nmerit or long familiarity or both have caused all Christian minds\nso lovingly to cling. His desire has rather been to furnish a\nsuccinct and compressed running commentary (not doctrinal) to be\nused sidc by side with its elder compeers. And yet there has been\nsomething of a remoter hope. It can scarcely be doubted that some\nday the attempt will be renewed to produce a satisfactory English\nBible--one in some respects perhaps (but assuredly with great and\nimportant deviations) on the lines of the Revision of 1881, or\neven altogether to supersede both the A.V. and the R.V.; and it\nmay be that the Translation here offered will contribute some\nmaterials that may be built into that far grander edifice.\n\n        10. THE GREEK TEXT here followed is that given in the\nTranslator's _Resultant Greek Testament_.\n\n        11. Of the VARIOUS READINGS only those are here given\nwhich seem the most important, and which affect the rendering\ninto English. They are in the footnotes, with V.L. (_varia\nlectio_) prefixed. As to the chief modern critical editions full\ndetails will be found in the _Resultant Greek Testament_, while\nfor the original authorities--MSS., Versions, Patristic\nquotations--the reader must of necessity consult the great works\nof Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others, or the numerous\nmonographs on separate Books. /3 In the margin of the R.V. a\ndistinction is made between readings supported by \"a few ancient\nauthorities,\" \"some ancient authorities,\" \"many ancient\nauthorities,\" and so on. Such valuation is not attempted in this\nwork.\n\n        12. Considerable pains have been bestowed on the exact\nrendering of the tenses of the Greek verb; for by inexactness in\nthis detail the true sense cannot but be missed. That the Greek\ntenses do not coincide, and cannot be expected to coincide with\nthose of the English verb; that--except in narrative--the aorist\nas a rule is _more_ exactly represented in English by our perfect\nwith \"have\" than by our simple past tense; and that in this\nparticular the A.V. is in scores of instances more correct than\nthe R.V.; the present Translator has contended (with arguments\nwhich some of the best scholars in Britain and in America hold to\nbe \"unanswerable\" and \"indisputable\") in a pamphlet _On the\nRendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect_. Even an\noutline of the argument cannot be given in a Preface such as\nthis.\n\n        13. But he who would make a truly _English_ translation\nof a foreign book must not only select the right nouns,\nadjectives, and verbs, insert the suitable prepositions and\nauxiliaries, and triumph (if he can) over the seductions and\nblandishments of idioms with which he has been familiar from his\ninfancy, but which, though forcible or beautiful with other\nsurroundings, are for all that part and parcel of that other\nlanguage rather than of English: he has also to beware of\n_connecting his sentences_ in an un-English fashion.\n\n        Now a careful examination of a number of authors\n(including Scottish, Irish, and American) yields some interesting\nresults. Taking at haphazard a passage from each of fifty-six\nauthors, and counting on after some full stop till fifty finite\nverbs--i. e. verbs in the indicative, imperative, or subjunctive\nmood--have been reached (each finite verb, as every schoolboy\nknows, being the nucleus of one sentence or clause), it has been\nfound that the connecting links of the fifty-six times fifty\nsentences are about one-third conjunctions, about one-third\nadverbs or relative and interrogative pronouns, while in the case\nof the remaining third there is what the grammarians call an\n_asyndeton_--no formal grammatical connexion at all. But in the\nwriters of the N.T. nearly _two_-thirds of the connecting links\nare conjunctions. It follows that in order to make the style of a\ntranslation true idiomatic English many of these conjunctions\nmust be omitted, and for others adverbs, &c., must be\nsubstituted.\n\n        The two conjunctions _for_ and _therefore_ are discussed\nat some length in two Appendices to the above-mentioned pamphlet\non the _Aorist_, to which the reader is referred.\n\n        14. The NOTES, with but few exceptions, are not of the\nnature of a general commentary. Some, as already intimated, refer\nto the readings here followed, but the great majority are in\nvindication or explanation of the renderings given. Since the\ncompletion of this new version nearly two years ago, ill-health\nhas incapacitated the Translator from undertaking even the\nlightest work. He has therefore been obliged to entrust to other\nhands the labour of critically examining and revising the\nmanuscript and of seeing it through the press. This arduous task\nhas been undertaken by Rev. Ernest Hampden-Cook, M.A., St. John's\nCollege, Cambridge, of Sandhach, Cheshire, with some co-operation\nfrom one of the Translator's sons; and the Translator is under\ndeep obligations to these two gentlemen for their kindness in the\nmatter. He has also most cordially to thank Mr. Hampden-Cook for\nmaking the existence of the work known to various members of the\nOLD MILLHILIANS' CLUB and other former pupils of the Translator,\nwho in a truly substantial manner have manifested a generous\ndetermination to enable the volume to see the light. Very\ngrateful does the Translator feel to them for this signal mark of\ntheir friendship.\n\n        Mr. Hampden-Cook is responsible for the headings of the\nparagraphs, and at my express desire has inserted some additional\nnotes.\n\n        I have further to express my gratitude to Rev. Frank\nBaliard, M.A., B.Sc., Lond., at present of Sharrow, Sheffield,\nfor some very valuable assistance which he has most kindly given\nin connexion with the Introductions to the several books.\n\n        I have also the pleasure of acknowledging the numerous\nvaluable and suggestive criticisms with which I have been\nfavoured on some parts of the work, by an old friend, Rev. Sydney\nThelwall, B.A., of Leamington, a clergyman of the Church of\nEngland, whom I have known for many years as a painstaking and\naccurate scholar, a well-read theologian. and a thoughtful and\ndevout student of Scripture.\n\n        I am very thankful to Mr. H. L. Gethin. Mr. S. Hales, Mr.\nJ. A. Latham, and Rev. T. A. Seed, for the care with which they\nhave read the proof sheets.\n\n        And now this Translation is humbly and prayerfully\ncommended to God's gracious blessing.\n\nR.F.W.\n\n/1. I am aware of what Proffessor Blackie has written on this\nsubject (_Aeschylus_, Pref. p. viii) but the problem endeavoured\nto be solved in this Translation is as above stated.\n\n/2. A flagrant instance is the \"having in a readiness\" of 2 Cor.\n10.6, A.V. althoglgh in Tyndale we find \"and are redy to take\nvengeaunce,\" and even Wiclif writes \"and we han redi to venge.\"\n\n/3 Such as McClellan's Four Gospels; Westcott on John's Gospel,\nJohn's Epistles, and _Hebrews_; Hackett on _Acts_, Lightfoot, and\nalso Ellicott, on various Epistles: Mayor on _James_; Edwards on\n_I Corinthians_ and _Hebrews_; Sanday and Headlam on _Romans_.\nAdd to these Scrivener's very valuable _Introduction to the\nCriticism of the N.T._\n\n\n                   PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION\n\n        For the purposes of this edition the whole volume has\nbeen re-set in new type, and, in the hope of increasing the\ninterest and attractiveness of the Translation, all conversations\nhave been spaced out in accordance with modern custom. A freer\nuse than before has been made of capital letters, and by means of\nsmall, raised figures, prefixed to words in the text, an\nindication has been griven whenever there is a footnote.\n\"Capernaum\" and \"Philadelphia\" have been substituted for the less\nfamiliar but more literal \"Capharnahum\" and \"Philadelpheia.\" Many\nerrata have been corrected, and a very considerable number of\nwhat seemed to be infelicities or slight inaccuracies in the\nEnglish have been removed. A few additional footnotes have been\ninserted, and, for the most part, those for which the Editor is\nresponsible have now the letters ED. added to them.\n\n        Sincere thanks are tendered to the many kind friends who\nhave expressed their appreciation of this Translation, or have\nhelped to make it better known, and to the many correspondents\nwho have sent criticisms of the previous editions, and made\nuseful suggestions for the improvement of the volume.\n\nE.H.C.\n\n                 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES\n\nAorist. Dr. Weymouth's Pamphlet on the Rendering of the Greek\n          Aorist and Perfect Tenses into English.\n\nA.V. Authorised English Version, 1611.\n\nCp.  Compare.\n\nED.  Notes for which the Editor is responsible, wholly or in part.\n\nI.E. That is.\n\nLit. Literally.\n\nLXX. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament.\n\nn.   Note.\n\nnn.  Notes.\n\nN.T. New Testament.\n\nO.T. Old Testament.\n\nR.V. Revised English Version, 1881-85.\n\nS.H. Sanday and Headlam's Commentary on 'Romans.'\n\nV.L. Varia Lectio. An alternative reading found in some\n     Manuscripts of the New Testament.\n\nV.V. Verses.\n\n        In accordance with modern English custom, _ITALICS_ are\nused to indicate emphasis. [In the etext, surounded by **]\n\n        Old Testament quotations are printed in small capitals.\n[In the etext, surrounded by <>]\n\n        During Christ's earthly ministry even His disciples did not always\nrecognize His super-human nature and dignity. Accordingly, in\nthe Gospels of this Translation, it is only when the Evangelists\nthemselves use of Him the words \"He,\" \"Him,\" \"His,\" that these\nare spelt with capital initial letters.\n\n        The spelling of \"me\" and \"my\" with small initial letters, when\nused by Christ Himself in the Gospels, is explained by the fact\nthat, before His Resurrection, He did not always emphasize His\nown super-human nature and dignity.\n\n               The Good News as Recorded by Matthew\n\n        There are ample reasons for accepting the uniform\ntradition which from earliest times has ascribed this Gospel to\nLevi the son of Alphaeus, who seems to have changed his name to\n'Matthew' on becoming a disciple of Jesus. Our information as to\nhis subsequent life is very scanty. After the feast which he made\nfor his old friends (Lu 5:29) his name only appears in the New\nTestament in the list of the twelve Apostles. Early Christian\nwriters add little to our knowledge of him, but his life seems to\nhave been quiet and somewhat ascetic. He is also generally\nrepresented as having died a natural death. Where his Gospel was\nwritten, or where he himself laboured, we cannot say.\n\n        Not a little controversy has arisen as to the form in\nwhich this Gospel first appeared, that is, as to whether we have\nin the Greek MSS. an original document or a translation from an\nearlier Aramaic writing. Modern scholarship inclines to the view\nthat the book is not a translation, but was probably written in\nGreek by Matthew himself, upon the basis of a previously issued\ncollection of \"Logia\" or discourses, to the existence of which\nPapias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all\ntestify.\n\n        The date of the Gospel, as we know it, is somewhat\nuncertain, but the best critical estimates are included between\n70 and 90, A.D. Perhaps, with Harnack, we may adopt 75, A.D.\n\n        The book was evidently intended for Jewish converts, and\nexhibits Jesus as the God-appointed Messiah and King, the\nfulfiller of the Law and of the highest expectations of the\nJewish nation. This speciality of aim rather enhances than\ndiminishes its general value. Renan found reason for pronouncing\nit \"the most important book of Christendom-- the most important\nbook which has ever been written.\" Its aim is manifestly didactic\nrather than chronological.\n\n                The Good News as Recorded by Mark\n\n        This Gospel is at once the briefest and earliest of the\nfour. Modern research confirms the ancient tradition that the\nauthor was Barnabas's cousin, \"John, whose other name was Mark,\"\nwho during Paul's first missionary tour \"departed from them\" at\nPamphylia, \"and returned to Jerusalem\" (see Ac 12:12,25;\n15:37,39; Co 4:1O; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24; 1Pe 5:13). His defection\nappeared to Paul sufficiently serious to warrant an emphatic\nrefusal to take him with him on a second tour, but in after years\nthe breach was healed and we find Mark with Paul again when he\nwrites to Colossae, and he is also mentioned approvingly in the\nsecond Letter to Timothy.\n\n        Scholars are now almost unanimous in fixing the date of\nthis Gospel between 63 and 70, A. D. There is no valid reason for\nquestioning the usual view that it was written in Rome. Clement,\nEusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius, all assert that this was so.\nThat the book was mainly intended for Gentiles, and especially\nRomans, seems probable from internal evidence. Latin forms not\noccurring in other Gospels, together with explanations of Jewish\nterms and customs, and the omission of all reference to the\nJewish Law, point in this direction. Its vividness of narration\nand pictorial minuteness of observation bespeak the testimony of\nan eye-witness, and the assertion of Papias, quoted by Eusebius,\nthat Mark was \"the interpreter of Peter\" is borne out by the\nGospel itself no less than by what we otherwise know of Mark and\nPeter.\n\n        In a real though not mechanical sense, this is \"the\nGospel of Peter,\" and its admitted priority to the Gospels of\nMatthew and Luke affords substantial reason for the assumption\nthat it is to some extent the source whence they derive their\nnarratives, although Papias distinctly affirms that Mark made no\nattempt at giving a carefully arranged history such as that at\nwhich Luke confessedly aimed.\n\n        In spite of the witness of most uncial MSS. and the\nvaliant pleading of Dean Burgon and others, modern scholars are\nwell nigh unanimous in asserting that the last twelve verses of\nthis Gospel are an appendix. Yet less cannot honestly be said\nthan that they \"must have been of very early date,\" and that they\nembody \"a true apostolic tradition which may have been written by\nsome companion or successor of the original author.\" In one\nArmenian MS. they are attributed to Aristion.\n\n                The Good News as Recorded by Luke\n\n        Modern research has abundantly confirmed the ancient\ntradition that the anonymous author of the third Gospel is none\nother than \"Luke the beloved physician\" and the narrator of the\n\"Acts of the Apostles\" (see. Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). Even\nRenan acknowledges this, and the objections of a few extremists\nappear to have been sufficiently answered.\n\n        The date is not easy to settle. The main problem is\nwhether the book was written before or after the destruction of\nJerusalem in 70, A.D. Not a few scholars whose views merit great\nrespect still think that it preceded that event, but the majority\nof critics believe otherwise. Three principal dates have been\nsuggested, 63, A.D., 80, A.D., 100, A.D. If we accept 80, A. D.,\nwe shall be in substantial accord with Harnack, McGiffert, and\nPlummer, who fairly represent the best consensus of scholarly\nopinion.\n\n        There is no evidence as to where this Gospel was\ncomposed, although its general style suggests the influence of\nsome Hellenic centre. Its special characteristics are plain. It\nis written in purer Greek than the other Gospels, and is\nmanifestly the most historic and artistic. It has also the widest\noutlook, having obviously been compiled for Gentiles, and,\nespecially, for Greeks. The Author was evidently an educated man\nand probably a physician, and was also a close observer.\n\n        Eighteen of the parables and six of the miracles found\nhere are not recorded elsewhere. Those \"portions of the Gospel\nnarrative which Luke alone has preserved for us, are among the\nmost beautiful treasures which we possess, and we owe them in a\ngreat measure to his desire to make his collection as full as\npossible.\" Luke's object was rather to write history than\nconstruct an \"apology\" and for this reason his order is generally\nchronological.\n\n        This Gospel is often termed, and not without reason, \"the\nGospel of Paul.\" Luke's close association with the great\nApostle--an association to which the record in the Acts and also\nthe Pauline Letters bear testimony--at once warrants and explains\nthe ancient assumption that we have here a writing as truly\ncoloured by the influence of Paul as that of Mark was by Peter.\nThis is especially the Gospel of gratuitous and universal\nsalvation. Its integrity has recently been placed beyond dispute.\nMarcion's edition of it in 140, A.D., was a mutilation of the\noriginal!\n\n                The Good News as Recorded by John\n\n        In spite of its rejection by Marcion and the Alogi, the\nfourth Gospel was accepted by most Christians at the end of the\nsecond century as having been written by the Apostle John. In the\npresent day the preponderating tendency among scholars favours\nthe traditional authorship. On the other hand the most recent\nscrutiny asserts: \"Although many critics see no adequate reason\nfor accepting the tradition which assigns the book to the Apostle\nJohn, and there are several cogent reasons to the contrary, they\nwould hardly deny that nevertheless the volume is Johannine--in\nthe sense that any historical element throughout its pages may be\ntraced back directly or indirectly to that Apostle and his\nschool.\"\n\n        As regards the date, no more definite period can be\nindicated than that suggested by Harnack--between 80, A.D., and\n110, A.D. But that it was written in Ephesus is practically\ncertain, and there is evidence that it was composed at the\nrequest of Elders and believers belonging to the Churches of\nRoman Asia.\n\n        The special characteristics which render the book unique\nin literature are unmistakable, but scarcely admit of brief\nexpression. It is manifestly supplementary to the other Gospels\nand assumes that they are known and are true. The differences\nbetween the fourth Gospel and the other three may be easily\nexaggerated, but it must be acknowledged that they exist. They\nrelate, (1) to the ministry of Christ, and (2) to His person. As\nto the former it is impossible to correlate all the references to\ndistinct events, for whilst the Synoptics appear to contemplate\nlittle more than the life and work of a single year, from John's\nstandpoint there can scarcely have been less than three years\nconcerned. As to the person of Christ, it must be owned that\nalthough the fourth Gospel makes no assertion which contradicts\nthe character of Teacher and Reformer attributed to Him by the\nSynoptics, it presents to us a personage so enwrapped in mystery\nand dignity as altogether to transcend ordinary human nature.\nThis transcendent Personality is indeed the avowed centre of the\nwhole record, and His portrayal is its avowed purpose. Yet whilst\nthe writer never clearly reveals to us who he himself is, it is\nequally manifest that his own convictions constitute the matrix\nin which the discourses and events are imbedded, and that there\nis nothing in this matrix to render that which it contains unreal\nor untrustworthy.\n\n                     The Acts of the Apostles\n\n        The authorship of this book has been much discussed, but\nit may now be affirmed with certainty that the writer of our\nthird Gospel is also the author of \"the Acts,\" and that he speaks\nfrom the standpoint of an eye-witness in the four we sections\n(16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1--28:16), and is known in Paul's\nLetters as \"Luke the beloved physician\" (Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm\n1:24). The date necessarily depends upon that of the third\nGospel. If the latter was written before the destruction of\nJerusalem, then Luke's second work may well have been issued\nbetween 66 and 70, A.D. But the tendency, in the present day, is\nto date the Gospel somewhere between 75 and 85, A.D., after the\ndestruction of the city. In that case \"the Acts\" may be assigned\nto any period between 80 and 90, A.D. The latter conclusion,\nthough by no means certain, is perhaps the more probable.\n\n        The familiar title of the book is somewhat unfortunate,\nfor it is manifestly not the intention of the writer to describe\nthe doings of the Apostles generally, but rather just so much of\nthe labours of Peter and Paul--and especially the latter--as will\nserve to illustrate the growth of the early Church, and at the\nsame time exhibit the emancipation of Christianity from its\nprimitive Judaic origin and environment.\n\n        It is plain that the writer was contemporary with the\nevents he describes, and although his perfect ingenuousness\nceaselessly connects his narrative with history, in no case has\nhe been proved to be in error. The intricacy of the connexions\nbetween this record and the Pauline Letters will be best\nestimated from a study of Paley's _Horae Paulinae_. We know\nnothing definite as to the place where the Acts was written, nor\nthe sources whence the information for the earlier portion of the\nnarrative was obtained. But it may be truthfully affirmed that\nfrom the modern critical ordeal the work emerges as a definite\nwhole, and rather confirmed than weakened in regard to its\ngeneral authenticity.\n\n                   Paul's Letter to the Romans\n\n        The four books of the New Testament known as the Letters\nto the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, are allowed by\npractically all critics, including some of the most\n\"destructive,\" to be genuine productions of the Apostle Paul.\nOpinions vary as to the order of their composition. The latest\nresearch tends to put 'Galatians' first, and 'Romans' last, in\nthe period between 53 and 58 A. D. The date generally assigned to\nthe Roman Letter is 58 A.D., but recently Harnack, McGiffert,\nClemen and others have shown cause for putting it some four years\nearlier. The chronology of the period is necessarily very\ncomplicated. It must suffice, therefore, to regard this Letter as\nhaving been written, at either of these dates, from Corinth,\nwhere Paul was staying in the course of his third missionary\ntour. He was hoping to go to Rome, by way of Jerusalem, and then\nproceed to Spain (15:24; Ac 24:21).\n\n        The object of this Letter was to prepare the Christians\nin Rome for his visit, and make a clear statement of the new\ndoctrines which he taught. It is probable that the crisis in\nGalatia, to which the Letter sent thither bears witness, had\ndriven the Apostle's thoughts in the direction of the subject of\nJustification, and he was apparently much troubled by the\npersistence of Jewish unbelief. Hence the present Letter has been\nwell termed \"the Gospel according to Paul.\"\n\n        We know really nothing about the Christians then in Rome\nbeyond what we find here. It is, however, fairly certain that\nreports concerning the Saviour would be taken to that city by\nproselytes, both before and after the events described in Acts 2,\nand we know that there was a large Jewish population there\namongst whom the seed would be sown. Some critics have thought\n\"that a note addressed to Ephesus lies embedded in the 16th\nchapter,\" because, they say, it is \"inconceivable that Paul could\nhave intimately known so many individuals in a Church like that\nin Rome to which he was personally a stranger.\" But this is by no\nmeans demonstrated, nor is there evidence that the Church there\nwas founded by any other Apostle.\n\n              Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians\n\n        The genuineness of the two Letters to the Corinthians has\nnever been seriously disputed. The first was written by the\nApostle Paul, probably in the early spring of 56 A.D., just\nbefore he left Ephesus for Troas in the course of his third\nmissionary tour (Ac 19). The Church in Corinth had been founded\nby him during his previous tour (Ac 18). After some hesitation he\nhad been induced to preach in Corinth, and in spite of the\nopposition of the Jews such great success attended his efforts\nthat he remained there for more than eighteen months. The furious\nattack upon him which was frustrated by Gallio gave impetus to\nthe new cause, so that when the Apostle left, there was a\ncomparatively strong Church there, consisting mostly of Greeks,\nbut including not a few Jews also. The dangers, however, arising\nout of the temperament and circumstances of the Corinthians soon\nmanifested themselves. The city was the capital of Roman Greece,\na wealthy commercial centre, and the home of a restless,\nsuperficial intellectualism. Exuberant verbosity, selfish\ndisplay, excesses at the Lord's table, unseemly behaviour of\nwomen at meetings for worship, and also abuse of spiritual gifts,\nwere complicated by heathen influences and the corrupting customs\nof idolatry. Hence the Apostle's pleas, rebukes, and\nexhortations. Most noteworthy of all is his forceful treatment of\nthe subject of the Resurrection of Christ; and this only a\nquarter of a century after the event. Of the Letter mentioned in\n5:9 we know nothing.\n\n             Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians\n\n        The second Letter to the Corinthians was probably written\nin the autumn of 56 A.D., the first Letter to them having been\nsent in the spring of that year. But there are other letters of\nwhich we have no clear account. One, lost to us, evidently\npreceded the first Letter (1Co 5:9). In our \"second\" Letter we\nfind mention (2:2,4) of a severe communication which could not\nbut give pain. Can this have been our \"first\" to the Corinthians?\nSome think not, in which case there must have been an\n\"intermediate\" letter. This some students find in 2Co 10 1-8:1O.\nIf so, there must have been four letters. Some have thought that\nin 2Co 6:14-7:1, and 8, 9, yet another is embedded, making\npossibly five in all. The reader must form his own conclusions,\ninasmuch as the evidence is almost entirely internal. On the\nwhole it would seem that our first Letter, conveyed by Titus, had\nproduced a good effect in the Corinthian Church, but that this\nwore off, and that Titus returned to the Apostle in Ephesus with\nsuch disquieting news that a visit of Paul just then to Corinth\nwould have been very embarrassing, alike for the Church and the\nApostle. Hence, instead of going, he writes a \"painful\" letter\nand sends it by the same messenger, proceeding himself to Troas\nand thence to Macedonia, where, in great tension of spirit, he\nawaits the return of Titus. At last there comes a reassuring\naccount, the relief derived from which is so great that our\nsecond Letter is written, with the double purpose of comforting\nthose who had been so sharply rebuked and of preventing the\nrecurrence of the evils which had called forth the remonstrance.\nIn this way both the tenderness and the severity of the present\nLetter may be explained.\n\n                  Paul's Letter to the Galatians\n\n        There is no question as to the genuineness of this\nPauline Letter, but unlike most other writings of the Apostle it\nwas addressed to \"Churches\" rather than to a single community.\n\n        Formerly it was not easy to decide the precise meaning of\nthe term \"Galatia.\" Opinions differed on the subject. The \"North\nGalatian theory,\" contended for by some German scholars,\nmaintained that the Letter was addressed to the Churches of\nAncyra, Tavium, Pessinus and possibly to those in other cities.\nThe \"South Galatian theory,\" which now holds the field in\nEnglish-speaking countries, is to the effect that the\ncongregations intended were those of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium,\nDerbe and Lystra; and this is strongly supported by the unique\nresemblance between this Letter and Paul's sermon in Pisidian\nAntioch (Ac 13:14-41). In any case the population was very mixed,\nconsisting of Phrygians, Greeks, Romans, Gauls and Jews.\n\n        The date of the Letter cannot be exactly fixed. The\nperiods assigned by recent scholarship vary from 46 A.D. to 58\nA.D., but the medium estimate of 53 A.D., adopted by Harnack and\nRamsay, satisfies all the requirements of the case.\n\n        The Apostle certainly visited Galatia during his second\nmissionary tour, perhaps about 51 A. D., and, although suffering\nfrom illness, was received with enthusiasm. After a short stay he\ndeparted cherishing a joyful confidence as to his converts there.\nBut when, less than three years afterwards, he came again, he\nfound that the leaven of Judaism had produced a definite\napostasy, insomuch that both the freedom of individual believers\nand his own Apostolic authority were in danger.\n\n        Even his personal presence (Ac 18:23) did not end the\ndifficulty. Hence, possibly during his journey between Macedonia\nand Achaia, he sent this Letter. Its rugged and incoherent style\nshows that it was dictated under great stress of feeling, and the\ndoctrine of justification by faith is stated more emphatically\nthan in any other of his writings. But his earnest insistence\nupon the \"fruit borne by the Spirit\" proves that his ideal of\npractical holiness was rather strengthened than impaired by his\nplea for Faith as the mainspring of Christian life.\n\n                  Paul's Letter to the Ephesians\n\n        This appears to have been a kind of circular Letter to\nthe Churches in Roman Asia, and was not addressed exclusively to\nthe Church in Ephesus.\n\n        Ephesus was a well-known seaport and the principal city\nin Roman Asia. It was famous alike for its wonderful temple,\ncontaining the shrine of Artemis, and for its vast theatre, which\nwas capable of accommodating 50,000 persons.\n\n        Paul was forbidden at first to preach in Roman Asia (Ac\n16:6), but he afterwards visited Ephesus in company with\nPriscilla and Aquila (Ac 18:19). About three years later (Ac\n19:1) he came again and remained for some time--probably from 54\nto 57 A. D.--preaching and arguing in the school of Tyrannus,\nuntil driven away through the tumult raised by Demetrius. He then\nwent to Jerusalem, by way of Miletus, but was arrested in the\nuproar created by the Jews and was taken first to Caesarea (Ac\n23:23), and thence to Rome (Ac 28:16). This was probably in the\nspring of 61 A.D.\n\n        Late in 62 or early in 63 A.D., this Letter was written,\ntogether with the companion Letters to the Colossians and\nPhilemon.\n\n                 Paul's Letter to the Philippians\n\n        This Letter was written shortly before that to the\nEphesians, probably late in 61 or early in 62 A.D. Epaphroditus\nhad been sent to Rome to assure the Apostle, in his imprisonment,\nof the tender and practical sympathy of the Philippian disciples\n(Php 2:25; 4:15,16). The messenger, however, fell ill upon his\narrival, and only on his recovery could Paul, as in this Letter,\nexpress his appreciation of the thoughtful love of the\nPhilippians.\n\n        The Apostle appears to have visited the city three times.\nIn 52 A.D. it was the place of his first preaching in Europe (Ac\n16:12); but he came again in 57 and in 58 A.D. (Ac 20:2,6), on\nthe last occasion spending the Passover season there.\n\n        Two special traits in the Macedonian character are\nrecognized by the Apostle in this Letter; the position and\ninfluence of women, and the financial liberality of the\nPhilippians. It is remarkable that a Church displaying such\ncharacteristics, and existing in a Roman \"colonia,\" should have\nlived, as this one did, \"without a history, and have perished\nwithout a memorial.\"\n\n                 Paul's Letter to the Colossians\n\n        This Letter belongs to the same group as those to the\nEphesians and Philemon, and was probably written from Rome about\n63 A. D. Colossae was a town in Phrygia (Roman Asia), on the\nriver Lycus, and was destroyed by an earthquake in the seventh\nyear of Nero's reign. The Church there was not founded by Paul\nhimself (Col 2:1), but by Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12), and this\nLetter arose out of a visit which Epaphras paid to the Apostle,\nfor the purpose of discussing with him the development, at\nColossae, of certain strange doctrines which may possibly have\nbeen a kind of early Gnosticism. Paul here writes to support the\nauthority and confirm the teaching of Epaphras.\n\n             Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians\n\n        During his second missionary tour (Ac 17), Paul came to\nThessalonica and preached the Good News there with no little\nsuccess. The city--which had had its name given it by Cassander,\nafter his wife, the sister of Alexander the Great--was the most\npopulous in Macedonia, besides being a \"free city\" and the seat\nof the Roman pro-consular administration. Its modern name is\nSaloniki.\n\n        Very soon the unbelieving Jews stirred up the mob against\nPaul and Silas, and dragged Jason before the magistrates. Hence\nthe brethren sent the missionaries away by night to Beroea, being\nalarmed for their safety. As the Apostle was naturally anxious\nabout the persecuted flock which he had been obliged to leave\nbehind, he made two attempts to return to them, but these being\nfrustrated (1Th 2:18), he then sent Timothy, from Athens, to\ninquire after their welfare and encourage them.\n\n        The report brought back was on the whole satisfactory,\nbut left occasion for the self-defence, the warnings and the\nexhortations of this Letter, which was then sent from Corinth,\nprobably in 53 A.D.\n\n            Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians\n\n        This Letter was written from Corinth not long after the\npreceding one, and probably in the year 54 A.D. Its occasion was\nthe reception of tidings from Thessalonica which showed that\nthere had been a measure of misapprehension of the Apostle's\nteaching in regard to the Return of the Lord Jesus, and also that\nthere was a definitely disorderly section in the Church there,\ncapable of doing great harm.\n\n        Hence Paul writes to correct the error into which his\nconverts had fallen, and at the same time he uses strong language\nas to the treatment to be dealt out to those members of the\nChurch who were given to idleness and insubordination.\n\n                  Paul's First Letter to Timothy\n\n        There has never been any real doubt among Christian\npeople as to the authorship of the three \"pastoral\" Letters. But\ndefinite objections to their genuineness have been made in recent\ntimes upon the ground of such internal evidence as their style,\nthe indications they present of advanced organization, their\nhistoric standpoint and their references to developed heresy.\n\n        Says one scholar, \"While there is probably nothing in\nthem to which the Apostle would have objected, they must be\nregarded on account of their style as the product of one who had\nbeen taught by Paul and now desired to convey certain teachings\nunder cover of his name. The date need not be later than 80 A.D.\"\n\n        Yet a thorough examination of the matter does not support\nsuch objections. It is certain that the three Letters stand or\nfall together, and there is no sufficient reason for dismissing\nthe ancient conclusion that they are all the genuine work of\nPaul, and belong to the last years of his life, 66-67 A.D.\n\n        This first Letter was probably written from Macedonia.\n\n                 Paul's Second Letter to Timothy\n\n        The marks of genuineness in this Letter are very\npronounced. For instance, the thanksgiving, the long list of\nproper names--twenty-three in number--the personal details and\nthe manifest tone of sincerity and earnestness. Hence it is\naccepted as Paul's even by some who reject the former Letter and\nthat addressed to Titus. But it is inseparable from the others,\nand was probably written from Rome during the Apostle's second\nimprisonment. It is his last Letter known to us, and its apparent\ndate is 67 A.D.\n\n                      Paul's Letter to Titus\n\n        This Letter was probably written from Ephesus in 67 A.D.\nTitus, who was a Greek by birth, is mentioned in eleven other\nplaces in the Pauline Letters and always with marked approval\n(2Co 2:13; 7:6,13,14; 8:6,16,23; 12:18; Ga 2:1,3; 2Ti 4:10). He\nwas often a trusted messenger to the Churches, his last errand\nbeing to Dalmatia. Tradition confirms the inference commonly\ndrawn from this Letter that he was long the Bishop of the Church\nin Crete, and regards Candia as having been his birthplace.\n\n                    Paul's Letter to Philemon\n\n        This Letter (63 A.D.) was written as the result of Paul's\ndeep interest in Onesimus, a slave who had fled from Colossae to\nRome to get free from Philemon his master (Col 4:9).\n\n        \"A Phrygian slave was one of the lowest known types to be\nfound in the Roman world, displaying all the worst features of\ncharacter which the servile condition developed. Onesimus had\nproved no exception. He ran away from his master, and, as Paul\nthought probable (verses 18,19), not without helping himself to a\nshare of his master's possessions. By the help of what he had\nstolen, and by the cleverness which afterwards made him so\nhelpful to Paul, he made his way to Rome, naturally drawn to the\ngreat centre, and prompted both by a desire to hide himself and\nby a youthful yearning to see the utmost the world could show of\nglory and of vice.\n\n        \"But whether feeling his loneliness, or wearied with a\nlife of vice, or impoverished and reduced to want, or seized with\na fear of detection, he made his way to Paul, or unbosomed\nhimself to some Asiatic he saw on the street. And as he stepped\nout of the coarse debauchery and profanity of the crowded resorts\nof the metropolis into the room hallowed by the presence of Paul,\nhe saw the foulness of the one life and the beauty of the other,\nand was persuaded to accept the gospel he had so often heard in\nhis master's house.\n\n        \"How long he remained with Paul does not appear, but it\nwas long enough to impress on the Apostle's mind that this slave\nwas no common man. Paul had devoted and active friends by him,\nbut this slave, trained to watch his master's wants and to\nexecute promptly all that was entrusted to him, became almost\nindispensable to the Apostle. But to retain him, he feels, would\nbe to steal him, or at any rate to deprive Philemon of the\npleasure of voluntarily sending him to minister to him (verse\n14). He therefore sends him back with this Letter, so exquisitely\nworded that it cannot but have secured the forgiveness and\ncordial reception of Onesimus\" (Marcus Dods, D.D., _New Testament\nIntroduction_).\n\n                    The Letter to the Hebrews\n\n        As regards the date of this Letter, the only sure\nconclusion appears to be that it was before 70 A.D. The book\nitself claims to have been written at the end of the Jewish Age\n(1:2; 9:26), whilst the earthly temple was still in existence\n(9:8), and it is inconceivable that such an overwhelming comment\nupon the writer's whole position as that afforded by the\ndestruction of Jerusalem would have been overlooked, had it been\navailable. Hence 67-68 A.D. may with probability be alleged as\nthe time of composition. The only fact clear as to the author is\nthat he was not the Apostle Paul. The early Fathers did not\nattribute the book to Paul, nor was it until the seventh century\nthat the tendency to do this, derived from Jerome, swelled into\nan ecclesiastical practice. From the book itself we see that the\nauthor must have been a Jew and a Hellenist, familiar with Philo\nas well as with the Old Testament, a friend of Timothy and\nwell-known to many of those whom he addressed, and not an Apostle\nbut decidedly acquainted with Apostolic thoughts; and that he not\nonly wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem but apparently\nhimself was never in Palestine. The name of Barnabas, and also\nthat of Priscilla, has been suggested, but in reality all these\ndistinctive marks appear to be found only in Apollos. So that\nwith Luther, and not a few modern scholars, we must either\nattribute it to him or give up the quest.\n\n        There has never been any question as to the canonicity of\nthis Letter, nor can there be any doubt as to its perennial value\nto the Church of Christ. Where it was written cannot be decided.\n\"The brethren from Italy\" (13:24) proves nothing. Nor is it\npossible to decide to whom it was sent. \"The Hebrews,\" to whom it\nwas addressed, may have been resident in Jerusalem, Alexandria,\nEphesus, or Rome. The most remarkable feature of the Letter is\nmanifestly its references to the old Covenant. Here there is a\nmingling of reverence and iconoclasm. The unquestionably divine\norigin of the Jewish dispensation is made use of for laying\nemphasis upon the infinitely superior glory of the Christian\norder. Thus an _a fortiori_ argument pervades the whole --if the\nshadow was divine, how much more must the substance be! \"The\nlanguage of the Epistle, both in vocabulary and style, is purer\nand more vigorous than that of any other book of the New\nTestament\" (Westcott).\n\n                          James's Letter\n\n        Four persons bearing the name of 'James' are mentioned in\nthe New Testament.\n\n(1) The Apostle, the son of Zabdi.\n\n(2) The Apostle, the son of Alphaeus.\n\n(3) The son of Mary the wife of Clopas.\n\n(4) The Lord's brother, mentioned as such along with Joses, Simon\nand Judah, and prominent in the Acts (12:17; 15:13; 21:18).\n\n        The last-named was also known as 'James the Just' and is\nrepresented by tradition as having led an ascetic life, which\nended in martyrdom. He was undoubtedly Bishop, or President, of\nthe Church in Jerusalem and in all probability this Letter was\nwritten by him from that city.\n\n        There has been some difference of opinion as to the date\nof the book. The majority of scholars insist that both the\ninternal and external evidence point to its having been written\nbetween 44 and 50 A. D., before the earliest of Paul's Letters.\nBut, on the other hand, the solemn emphasis which the author lays\nupon the immediateness of the Lord's Return (5:7,8,9) may be\nregarded as a moral proof of a date very much nearer the winding\nup of the Mosaic dispensation in 70 A. D.\n\n        The Letter may have been a Jewish one, addressed to the\nChristian converts from Judaism who were scattered abroad, within\nor beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. Luther deemed it \"an\nEpistle of straw,\" by reason of its insistence upon the vital\nimportance of 'works.' But its practical ideal assumes the same\nbasis of Christian faith as is found in the Letters of Paul. The\nopening references to severe trial seem to show that the\npersecution begun by Herod Agrippa had already been repeated\nelsewhere. If the later date of the book be admitted, the\npersecution must then, of course, have been that under Nero.\n\n                       Peter's First Letter\n\n        The state of things described in this Letter answers to\nwhat we find in the first Letter to Timothy, and points to the\nsame period. The \"fiery trial\" referred to is probably the\npersecution which, begun by Nero, in 64 A.D., in order to divert\nattention from himself, was continued throughout the Roman\nEmpire.\n\n        The Letter seems to be primarily addressed to those who\nregarded Peter as the Apostle to the Jews, although it is\nmanifest that he did not think of these alone. The fact that it\nis \"full of Pauline thought and Pauline language,\" is accounted\nfor by the well-grounded supposition that Peter arrived in Rome\nshortly before Paul was released. So that this Letter, probably\nwritten about 65-66 A.D., was definitely intended to set before\nthe Churches of Roman Asia \"the inspiring vision of the two\nApostles working and planning together in the capital.\"\n\n        This would be at once the clearest lesson the Churches\ncould have concerning their unity, and a great encouragement to\nthose then undergoing tribulation and persecution on behalf of\nChrist.\n\n                      Peter's Second Letter\n\n        It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to either\nthe date or the authorship of this Letter. From the beginning\nthere have been doubts as to its genuineness and canonicity, and\nthese are represented to-day in the differing judgements of\ncritics equally able and sincere.\n\n        It has, however, unquestionably had a place in the canon\nof the New Testament since the Council of Laodicea in 372 A.D.,\nand there is certainly no such decisive evidence against it as to\nwarrant our omitting it from the New Testament.\n\n        It would appear that the writer, whoever he was, had seen\nthe Letter from Jude, and bore it in mind in this his plea for\nsuch character and conduct on the part of believers as were\nworthy of their faith and would prepare them for the Coming of\nthe Lord. The whole Letter constitutes an earnest appeal for\npractical holiness.\n\n                       John's First Letter\n\n        That this Letter was the actual work of the Apostle John,\nthe son of Zabdi, has been abundantly testified from the very\nearliest times.\n\n        Some modern critics have doubted it, on the ground of\ninternal evidence. But a calm survey of the whole case does not\nbear out their objections. Dr. Salmon well says that no\nexplanation of the origin of the Epistle fits the facts so well\nas the one which has always prevailed. It seems to have been\naddressed to the Church at large, with perhaps special reference\nto the Churches in Roman Asia.\n\n        The connexion between this Letter and the fourth Gospel\nis \"intimate and organic. The Gospel is objective and the Epistle\nsubjective. The Gospel suggests principles of conduct which the\nEpistle lays down explicitly. The Epistle implies facts which the\nGospel states as historically true.\"\n\n        This Letter appears to have been written from Ephesus,\nand critics have usually assigned 95 A. D., or some other year\nequally late in the Apostolic age, as the probable date of its\ncomposition. On the other hand the internal evidence points to a\ndate immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70\nA.D. See 2:8 (last clause); 2:18; 4:3; and note the expectation\nof a speedy Coming of Christ (2:28; 3:2)--an expectation which\nseems almost to have ceased in the early Church after that date.\n\n                       John's Second Letter\n\n        Although we are unable to fix the exact date of this\nLetter or the place at which it was written, there is sufficient\nevidence, both external and internal, to warrant our acceptance\nof it as a genuine work of the Apostle John.\n\n        Some have thought that the \"lady\" addressed stands for an\nunknown Church, but upon careful consideration it appears more\nreasonable and natural to regard the Letter as having been a\nprivate one. It is impossible to discover the name of the\nindividual to whom it was sent, but both this and the following\nLetter may be taken as \"precious specimens of the private\ncorrespondence of the beloved Apostle.\"\n\n                       John's Third Letter\n\n        There can be no doubt that this Letter was addressed to\nan individual person. We cannot affix to it a definite date, or\nplace, but the most natural supposition--which there is nothing\nto contradict--is that it came from the Apostle in Ephesus, about\nthe same time as the preceding Letter.\n\n        The special mention of Diotrephes and his behaviour\npoints indeed to a somewhat advanced development in the Church to\nwhich Galus belonged, but such characters are all too possible at\nany juncture to afford in this instance any guarantee of a later\ndate.\n\n        In this, as in the preceding Letters, the writer's great\nconcern is that transcendental truth should be embodied in\npractical holiness.\n\n                          Jude's Letter\n\n        Of the time and place of the composition of this Letter\nwe know nothing beyond what may be inferred from its contents.\nThese seem to show that it was written in Palestine, and the\nabsence of any reference to so striking an event as the\ndestruction of Jerusalem points to a date earlier than 70 A. D.\n\n        It has, however, been thought that such a rebuke of error\nand licentiousness as that which this Letter contains can only\napply to the forms of Gnosticism known to have existed in the\nfirst quarter of the second century. But there is no reason to\ndoubt that the author was the man he asserts he was, the brother\nof James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. He was, therefore,\nnot an Apostle but one of the Lord's brothers.\n\n        The abiding value of the Letter consists in its severe\ncondemnation of merely professional Christianity, and its\nremarkably beautiful doxology.\n\n                      The Revelation of John\n\n        The Apocalypse was written either in 67, or in 96, A.D.\nAn oft-quoted statement of Irenaeus that it, or its author--\nthere is no word inserted to indicate which of the two he\nmeant--\"was seen\" about the end of the reign of Domitian, is\nregarded by many as a conclusive proof of the later date. On the\nother hand, the \"internal evidence\"--the evidence, that is,\nfurnished by the contents of the book itself--appears to point\neven more unmistakably to the earlier date. E.g-., in 11:1,2,8,\nthe Holy City and the earthly Temple are spoken of as being still\nin existence, and as about to be trodden under foot by the\nGentiles.\n\n        The language of the book has also a bearing upon the\nproblem of its date. Although other explanations have been\nsuggested, the many Hebrew idioms that it contains as compared\nwith the much purer Greek of the fourth Gospel-- which was\nprobably by the same author--seem to indicate that it was written\nlong before that Gospel, at a time when the Apostle had as yet\nonly an imperfect acquaintance with the Greek language.\n\n        Dr. Stuart Russell, in his work _The Parousia_, has\ncontended for the belief that the fall of Jerusalem and Judaism\nin 70 A.D. marked a stupendous epoch in the unseen world, a\npersonal--although unrecorded--return of the Saviour to the earth\nthen taking place (cp. Ac 7:55; 9:7; 1Co 9:1), accompanied by a\nspiritual judgement of bygone generations, a resurrection from\nHades to Heaven of the faithful of past ages, and an ingathering\nof saints then on earth into the Father's House of many mansions\n(Mt 24:31; Joh 14:3; 1Th 4:17; 2Th 2:1).\n\n        If this belief ever obtains general acceptance the\nearlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fully\nestablished. For it will then be seen that the book describes\nbeforehand events which took place in 70 A.D. and the years\nimmediately preceding, partly on earth and partly in the\nspiritual world, and is mainly concerned with the downfall of the\nearthly Jerusalem and the setting up of Christ's heavenly\nKingdom--the new Jerusalem. And its many mysterious symbols will\nbe seen to have been a cipher of which the first Christians held\nthe key, but which hid its meaning from their enemies.\n\n        Many scholars, however, regard the book as a document of\nNero's time carefully incorporated in one written about 90 A.D.:\n\"a Jewish Apocalypse in a Christian framework;\" both perhaps\nbeing by the same author.--EDITOR.","title":"Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech, Preface and Introductions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9601}