The Expositor's Bible: Index

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE

NEW TESTAMENT

When we pass from the volumes of the Expositor's Bible that deal with the Old Testament to those which expound the books of the New Testament we discover less departure from the traditional attitude. And yet a very little knowledge of the enormous amount of research which has been prosecuted during recent years in the fruitful field of primitive Christian literature and its surrounding scenes must convince us that here also was a clamorous call for a fresh treatment of the whole subject. It is much to have the books taken one by one and treated each as a distinct entity; in this way we are led on to perceive that richer harmony of the various apostolic notes which means so much more than the unison of the older methods: First, instead of the familiar treatment of minute phrases commonly known as "text," we have the wider survey and broader handling of the arguments of the books, which to those who have not been accustomed to it appears as a revelation, so that these books become new things to them. Then we have that individual treatment, that temporary isolation of the books, which enables us to understand their limitations as well as the amplitude of their contents. Lastly, we come to see the specific teaching of the several New Testament writers, so that we can no longer confuse the distinctive message of the author of Hebrews with that of St. Paul, or confound the ideas of St. Peter with those of St. James.

The Expositor's Bible is based upon a more accurate text and more exact renderings of the New Testament than were available for previous works of exposition. The discovery of one of the two oldest known manuscripts at the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, in the middle of the nineteenth century, is only one, though perhaps the greatest, of the steps in advance towards obtaining a correct Greek Testament which have been taken during the last hundred years. The immense labors of Tischendorf in the collation of manuscripts and readings from the Fathers, following the earlier work of Mill, Griesbach and others, but with a much richer mine of materials to draw upon, laid a foundation on which later experts have been laboring with the aim of producing the purest possible text.34 Westcott and Hort went further in working out a scientific theory with canons of interpretation which at first appeared to sweep the field and claim almost universal assent.35 More recently, however, it has been felt that these scholars were tempted to rely too much on one or two old manuscripts – chiefly, indeed, on a single manuscript, the Vatican, and to treat too contemptuously the claims of what is known as the "Western Text," represented among other authorities by the great Cambridge MS., the Codex Bezae. Accordingly their text cannot be regarded as final.36 Meanwhile perhaps the soundest working Greek Testament is that edited by Nestlè for the "British and Foreign Bible Society," which strikes the mean of several critical editions. The more accurate text has been accompanied by more correct translations, of which the most conspicuous are the English and American Revised Versions. This may be described as substantially one and the same revision of the so-called "Authorized Version"; but there are several emendations of the American revisers which were not accepted by their more conservative English coadjutors, although in nearly every case they must be allowed to be improvements both as regards scholarship and also in lucidity. Since the Revised Version appeared several completely new translations of the New Testament into modern English have been published.37

The most remarkable characteristic of the latest Biblical criticism is the application to the New Testament of those disintegrating processes with the results of which on Old Testament studies we have long been familiar. This, however, is by no means so alarming as the claims of the more radical critics might suggest. It is true that some scholars carry their destructive criticism to an extreme – for instance, Schmiedel with the gospels, refusing to allow full assurance for the authenticity of more than five of our Lord's sayings, and Van Manen with the epistles, repudiating the authenticity of all those ascribed to St. Paul.38 But these critics stand almost alone; at all events they do not represent anything like the normal position of New Testament scholarship. The accident of their prominence in one of the great Bible dictionaries, which is simply due to editorial sympathies, must not disguise the fact of their eccentricity. Nothing is more remarkable in recent criticism than the fact that while the more conservative of the two new dictionaries39 accepts the main critical position of advanced scholarship with regard to the Old Testament, it differs toto coelo40 from its rival in its treatment of the New Testament. In these respects it fairly corresponds to the position taken up by most of the writers of the Expositor's Bible.

A remarkable approach towards unanimity is to be seen in the views of scholars of various types with reference to what is known as the "synoptic problem," the problem of the origin of our first three gospels occasioned by the perplexing phenomena of their frequent close resemblance and signally frequent striking divergence. Fifty years ago opinions about this question were in a perfectly chaotic condition; indeed, there were about as many opinions as the highest possible arithmetical variation in the mutual relations of the gospels would permit. Some put Matthew first, some Mark, some Luke; and all conceivable theories as to their relation one to another, the use of earlier documents, and the degree of reliance on tradition or on written sources to be detected in their authors found eager advocates. But gradually the turbid waters settled and certain definite, generally accepted ideas were crystallized. In the present day it is almost universally agreed that Mark was written by the man whose name it bears, although when Pfleiderer gave his adhesion to this view such a confession from one who was regarded as a leader of the "left wing" of criticism occasioned some surprise.41 Further, it is the generally accepted opinion that the bulk of the narrative portion of Matthew – the chief exceptions being the Infancy and Resurrection narrative – is based on Mark, and that the same is true to a considerable extent with regard to Luke. There has been much discussion as to whether St. Mark's gospel has undergone revision. But the ripest results of study on this subject are represented by the conclusions of Dr. Abbott who has shown that our Mark is really the earlier edition of the gospel which in a later and slightly modified form, its ruggedness being smoothed, was used in the construction of Matthew and Luke. In the second place, it is very generally admitted that the discourses in Matthew, which are inserted in five blocks of sayings, like five wedges driven into the narrative as that stands in Mark, are the contents of a work consisting of the "oracles," or "sacred sayings," of Jesus which a very ancient church writer, Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, tells us that Matthew compiled.42 Thus we get two of our gospels well authenticated, Mark being admitted to be the work of the man to whom it is ascribed and Matthew being acknowledged as in the main a combination of St. Matthew the Apostle's collection of the teachings of Jesus with the standard narrative in Mark. The infancy and resurrection narratives must have been derived from other primitive authorities.

The case of our third gospel is somewhat different. As we might expect from his preface, St. Luke has availed himself of a wider range of materials. But he too, like the author of our first gospel, is now admitted to have used Mark as his primary basis, though not to so great extent, or so almost exclusively. In particular in that rich section which is commonly, though perhaps erroneously, ascribed to our Lord s Peræan ministry, he has a store of precious materials that are not met with in any other gospels. Similarly, while some verbal coincidences lead us to the conclusion that he also used St. Matthew's collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is evident that he had other collections of our Lord's teachings, from which, for instance, he got the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Good Samaritan, and many other choice utterances the characteristic beauty and originality of which constitute their own authentication.

Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we see that this wonderful book has been subjected to the most searching criticism during recent years with very interesting results. Half a century ago Baur declared that it could not have been written before the Year A. D. 160. Since then the finding of primitive Christian Documents43 which bear testimony to the use of this gospel in earlier times, together with the proofs of its archaic character brought out by a comparison of its contents with second-century literature, has forced the date of its origin steadily back and yet further back, till the latest possible date that can be assigned to it is quite early in the second century. But more than this, there is a growing tendency to connect this gospel with the son of Zebedee. Some scholars44 would assign the actual writing of the book to another person, perhaps John the Elder; but then they allow that this somewhat shadowy personage, referred to by Papias as a contemporary of the Apostles, derived his information from the Beloved Disciple. One leading scholar45 holds that the teachings of Jesus in our Fourth Gospel came from the Apostle John, while he thinks that most of the narrative portions are due to another hand. But in one of the latest works on the subject, Dr. Drummond ascribes the whole book to the Apostle and meets the adverse views of recent criticism with masterly replies. Even if the final verdict should be to ascribe the literary form of the work to John the Elder or some unknown scholar at Ephesus, the growing consensus of opinion is toward assigning the substance of it to St. John himself.

The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment of the Acts of the Apostles. The "Tübingen School," represented in this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St. Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism. That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the primitive character of the first half – especially as illustrated by the speeches of St. Peter and others,46 and later by the collection of many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book, namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay – the greatest living authority on the antiquities and history of Asia Minor in the first century – that many local and contemporary facts have been brought to light confirmatory of the accuracy of St. Luke as a historian.47

With regard to St. Paul's epistles the case stands thus: A few extremists reject them all, partly on the ground of their supposed inconsistency with the Acts– thus reversing Zeller's argument, but mainly because of the advanced condition of Christian experience which they illustrate, as though the pace of spiritual development in the white heat of the greatest religious "revival" the world has ever seen could be measured by the ideas of a Dutch professor in his chill lecture room! But the mass of critical opinion – British, German, and American – is tending toward a wider recognition of the genuineness of these writings than was allowed a generation ago. Baur's admittedly authentic group of four, which has been called "the great quadrilateral of Christianity," still stands – viz., 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Next come Philippians and I Thessalonians now accepted as virtually beyond question. Then Colossians has been vindicated in schools of severe criticism.48 If Colossians is allowed, there can be no doubt as to receiving its companion epistle, the beautiful little letter to Philemon. There are still many who are unable to admit 2 Thessalonians, chiefly because of its apocalyptic contents. But of late years it has been shown that the primitive church was possessed with the hope of the coming of Christ in glory to a remarkable extent, as a perfectly dominating idea. There remains Ephesians as now the most questioned of all the epistles that bear the name of St. Paul, except the Pastorals. But when it is seen that one of the chief objections to it is that it is said to be "a weak" (!) imitation of Colossians we may be allowed to regard this judgment as a matter of personal taste rather than a decision of objective criticism. Luther does not stand alone in holding this epistle to be one of the choicest books of the New Testament.

The question of the Pastoral Epistles must be considered as still one meeting with doubtful answers. Many scholars who accept all the ten epistles of St. Paul to the Churches agree with Marcion of the second century in not admitting these three works. Still they are defended by most British and American New Testament49 scholars, and some who do not allow that in their present form they can be attributed to the Apostle still admit that they contain fragments of the Apostle's genuine writings.50

The Epistle to the Hebrews is now universally admitted not to be a work of St. Paul. The book itself makes no claim to be such, and it is unfortunate that the English Revisers retained the misleading title ascribing it to "Paul the Apostle," a late superscription of no historical value. Happily the American Revisers have struck this out. Claims for Barnabas and for Apollos as its author have their advocates; and lately Prof. Harnach has hit on the happy guess, backed up by considerations of some amount of probability, that its author was a woman – Priscilla. But most scholars feel it necessary to abide by Origen's negative conclusion: "Who wrote the epistle God only knows." That it is a most valuable work of high inspiration well worthy of a place in the canon in spite of its anonymity cannot be doubted. It has recently received special attention from scholars in the form of fresh and luminous exposition.51

I Peter has been somewhat severely handled in recent times, Harnach regarding it as the work of some unknown disciple of St. Paul. But the growing perception of a rapprochement between the two great Apostles, which is seen in recent scholarship, points to the conclusion that St. Peter, who was evidently a man of a most impressionable nature, may not have felt himself above receiving influences from the great Apostle of the Gentiles; and it is not to be denied that there are features of the epistle which link it more closely with St. Peter's speeches in Acts than with the writings of St. Paul. On the other hand 2 Peter is the one book of the New Testament now almost universally treated as not genuine; it was the latest to be accepted in the primitive church.52

James is regarded as a genuine work of the head of the Church at Jerusalem by its chief English commentator,53 although most German and American scholars who have written about it recently assign it to a very late date.54

The Epistles of John are now almost universally admitted to be the work of the author of the fourth gospel. Little can be said as to the Epistle of Jude except that its free use of Apocryphal books has been clearly demonstrated. But, lastly, a flood of light has been thrown on the Revelation by recent studies in Jewish Apocalyptic literature, and even in Babylonian mythology.55 It has been shown that this mysterious book, which many had regarded as unique in literature, may be associated with a school of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic writings from some of the former of which it draws its materials. Then, as the inquiry is pushed further back, some of the most remarkable imagery is traced through these Jewish writings to Babylonian legends. While this interesting process may help to account for the form of the book, it does not touch its essence and that marvelous inspiration by virtue of which it soars above all possible rivals and it is to us the Apocalypt, the one book in which the Spirit of God unveils the springs and purposes of the providence of history.

During recent years the methods of the commentator have undergone almost as great a revolution as those of the critic. New dictionaries and grammars56 have helped to a more accurate understanding of words and phrases. But the most remarkable contribution to this form of study comes from a wholly new region, the region of contemporary records. Inscriptions in Greece and Asia Minor and Papyri discovered in Egypt, dating from the very time when the New Testament was written, are found to contain phrases identical with what we had been accustomed to regard as peculiarly characteristic of Hellenistic or New Testament Greek. The conclusion to be drawn from these remarkable discoveries is that the books of the New Testament were written in the ordinary spoken Greek of their day, the very same form of language in which leases were drawn up and private letters were written by people at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, in which inscriptions were chiseled by sculptors in Cos among the isles of Greece. From this we are led to see the mistake of the old commentators in interpreting the New Testament by means of their knowledge of the classics. The consequence is that the Revised Version must be regarded as already partially out of date, since its committees were dominated by English university classical scholarship, as represented by Dr. Ellicott, the chairman of the English committee.

Another modern movement of research also carries us away from the old classicism. While the New Testament writers used the colloquial language of the cosmopolitan Greek-speaking people of their day, they were all, or nearly all, brought up in Jewish schools and taught to think in Jewish modes of thought. This indicates that some of their expressions can best be interpreted by a knowledge of Aramaic, the language of Palestine in the time of Christ. And now Aramaic studies have been brought in to assist in the interpretation of the New Testament with luminous results.57

Two further characteristics may be observed in the new modern commentaries.58 One is a vigorous effort to arrive at the original meaning of the books, rather than to the exclusion of any reference to theological systems of later date; in other words, honest exegesis, rather than polemical discussion. The other characteristic is a broader method of treatment in seeking for the ideas of the sacred writings as more important than the minute study of words which characterized the scholarship of the last generation of commentators. The older commentaries were mainly grammatical; the newer commentaries are chiefly historical, theological or philosophical.59 In harmony with this later method of exegesis the Expositor's Bible may be regarded as a great commentary on the Holy Scriptures, as well as a work of exposition.

It is no longer possible for the fully equipped scribe who is to bring out of his treasury things new and old to be "a man of one book." While the center of his studies must be the Scriptures, he has undertaken to explain, his very explanation of them is largely dependent on his gleanings from other fields of learning. Formerly the Bible was regarded by itself in dazzling isolation, like a statue set on a pedestal. Now we discover that we can see it much better when it stands in its place, which is not a mere niche in the wall of the temple of humanity, but the central shrine of all history. The life and thought of the world in which the New Testament first appeared must not be treated as the mere frame of the picture, although even that would be something, for a suitable frame helps to show its contents to the best advantage. But we should rather think of the circumstances and setting of the gospel and apostolic stories as background and even in part foreground to the Christian revelation. It must be confessed that sometimes these accessories are painted with so much Pre-raffaelite force and color that there is a danger of missing the message of the picture owing to the distraction of the accessories. A knowledge of the geography of Palestine, Eastern manners and customs, the state of the Roman world at the time of Christ, contemporary Greek philosophy, and a host of other matters more or less remote from the central theme of the New Testament, must not be allowed to overshadow that central theme. The picturesqueness of modern writing threatens this danger; and modern writing is nothing if it is not picturesque. But true illustration, such as is aimed at in the Expositor's Bible, goes deeper. It does not detract from the interest of the New Testament itself by the meretricious charms of the surroundings, a materializing and secularizing of the sacred and spiritual of which some of the most popular modern Lives of Christ are guilty. On the contrary, it seeks to throw light on the New Testament itself, explaining obscurities, vivifying what had not been fully realized before, setting the whole picture before us in warm colors of life. Used in this way the fruits of the Palestine Exploration Fund prove to be of great value. Then scholars of contemporary Jewish life and thought have enabled us to see more clearly the actual condition of the people among whom Jesus lived,60 and those who have been investigating the history and archæology of the Roman Empire of this period have enabled us to see much more clearly, how the Apostles carried out their wider mission, how the first churches were founded in the larger world, and how the primitive Christian life was lived in the midst of pagan surroundings.61

Making use of such materials as have been indicated above, several scholars have been attempting the difficult task of writing the Life of Christ,62 and several also the more manageable work of giving an account of the history of Apostolic times. Here we see that the destructive criticism which made havoc of history under the hands of the famous "Tübingen school" has been almost entirely superseded by constructive efforts which have brought out the circumstances of primitive times with remarkable clearness. The learned, sober studies of Hort in England,63, as well as the writings of Prof. Ramsay already referred to; the brilliant work of Weizsäcker64 in Germany; the histories of McGiffert,65 of the school of Harnach, and of Prof. Bartlet, a singularly judicious and discerning writer,66 are among the most prominent contributions to a right understanding of the events of the Apostolic times. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the research and criticism of recent days have brought us face to face with the primitive age of Christianity in a manner never attainable during any of the intermediate ages. It is as though we of the twentieth century had gained a height from which we could look across the intervening centuries, many of which lie wrapped in mist, and see clear and sharp against the horizon the blue hills of the wonderful first century.