homily. But the writing is more than formally a letter. It presupposes some personal acquaintance on the author's part with some circle which he is primarily addressing. The loose connection of the various paragraphs, which often resemble groups of aphorisms with as little cohesion as a handful of pearls, is due here as in the Wisdom of Solomon to the writer's gnomic style,' although at the same time it must be admitted that the cognate and much more elaborate "Shepherd" of Hermas bears, in its extant form, some traces of having been put together from previous flyleaves of prophetic addresses. The analogous abruptness with which Ecclus (5129. 30) and Wisd Sol (1922) close, is rather unfavourable to the allied conjecture that the original conclusion of James has been lost; especially as the letter itself gives but little evidence of close or continuous intercourse between the writer and his readers at the time of writing. At the same time, while unable to accept Spitta's theory in its entirety, I strongly suspect that in 21 the words ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ represent a gloss originally written on the margin by a later editor or copyist, and subsequently incorporated in the text. The grammatical explanations of the text as it stands (for which cp. Mayor and Beyschlag) are more or less strained: 7s dógns does not go satisfactorily with either πίστιν οι κυρίου, and the most simple view, which regards it as in apposition to 'I. X., has little in its favour. On the other hand, ó kúpios Ts dóns is not merely a phrase for God in Enoch (ep. Spitta, pp. iv, 4, 60 f.), but applied by Paul to Christ (1 Co 28, ouk av Tòv KúρLOV Tηs dóns éoTavp@oav). Whether the author of James intended it for God (as 2 127 25 suggest) or Christ, it is hardly possible to determine. But as the book came to be used, it would be natural for some editor or reader, who had 1 Pet 117-21 before him, to append the gloss u. 'I. X., either to explain the ambiguous phrase or to definitely bring it into line with 1 Co 28.

The linguistic coincidences between Judas and 2 Peter cannot, any more than those between Colossians and Ephesians, be indicated in print. But a tabular résumé,3 such as is given e.g. by Spitta, brings out with sufficient clearness the fact that the similarities of expression in the two writings are not coincidences, nor due to the use of a common source, but reminiscences and adaptations. One writing depends upon the other. Now this involves undoubtedly the priority of Judas, chiefly on the following grounds. (a) The style of Judas is pregnant, original, and energetic; 1 Like Wordsworth's poems of 1831, the various paragraphs of James are semidetached and end abruptly; yet they too

"Have moved in order, to each other bound

By a continuous and acknowledged tie,
Though unapparent."

It is not, as I think, necessary to regard even the comparatively isolated passages 41-10 and 51-6 as interpolated fragments of polemic against the unbelieving Jews (Jacoby, NT Ethik, pp. 170 f.). In this class of literature a certain detachment inevitably belongs to many sections. The Wisdom of Seirach is an example itself, though there also compilation and interpolation have been occasionally suggested.

2 The parallel in Ecclus 3512-15 is most remarkable: there, however, as in Ps 811-3 (ó Deòs iv ouvazwyn) the order is reversed; charity to widows and the fatherless is a proof of genuine religion, but it follows the conception of God's impartiality. The writer's devotion to the Wisdom-literature and the OT generally, carries him past not only Jesus (Heb 121-3) but Paul, in his search for examples of rouové (510 f.), although even Clem. Rom. (5) had already found an illustration of that virtue in the apostle of the Gentiles (Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέδειξεν . . . εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός).

...

3 Had Judas used 2 Peter, it is incredible that he should have selected one or two passages-and these not the most characteristic-besides passing over much of equal

that of 2 Peter is looser in expression, and occasionally indistinct for all its diffuseness. 2 Peter has "echoes" in it. The special and concrete examples of Judas are present to the writer, but are sometimes dropped, sometimes abbreviated, sometimes flattened out into fairly general descriptions. The words of Judas become now and again consciously modified (σπidades, σmido, e.g.): his threefold rhythm is lost; his images are used for different ends. (b) Judas, too, is a unity; from first to last it throbs with a single spirit. On the other hand, the section in 2 Peter which incorporates it stands in a peculiar relation to the calmer and less passionate portions of the epistle; here the polemic is more of an interlude. (c) Further, the author of 2 Peter has borrowed and used his materials in such a way that the later reproduction would be in parts almost unintelligible, unless the original were extant (e.g. 2 P 217=Jud 12. 13, 2 P 211— Jud, 2 P 21=Jud 6). Features like these point to one conclusion, that the more compact and original writing has been obviously worked over by another writer, who has in the process toned down, omitted, and expanded: no other theory does anything like justice to the literary characteristics of both letters. It is of course no objection to this position that 2 Peter speaks of the errorists in the future tense, while in Judas they are present actually to the writer. Judas is thus true to the immediate situation, while the author of 2 Peter, though living in a similar set of conditions, desires to represent his polemic as a prophecy of Peter, and consequently speaks of the libertines as a future danger-though even this attitude is not kept up consistently (e.g. 218. 222). While the data thus prove the priority of Judas, and indirectly the pseudonymity of the later epistle,1 they do not, however, afford any reliable clue to the interval which elapsed between the former's composition and its subsequent use by the author of 2 Peter.

Judas 1. --ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου, an interpolation inserted during the second century before 170 A.D., by an editor who supposed the author to be a brother of the great James. So McGiffert (p. 588), along with Harnack (Chron. p. 465 f.), who suggests that the whole phrase, 'Inooû Xpiστov dovλos, ádeλpòs dè 'lakóẞou was added between 150 and 180 A.D., for the sake of increasing its authority.

2 Peter.-Grotius, besides attributing the epistle to Symeon, the successor of James in the bishopric of Jerusalem, held the composite 2 nature of the writing; chaps. 1, 2, and 3 being different letters by the same author. Doubts upon the second chapter as an integral part of the writing have been more than once expressed, but without leading to any decisive conclusions (Bertholdt, Lange, and Kübel). Matthew Arnold (God

weight. Also, if he had intended to remind the reader of 2 Peter, it is strange how he never alludes explicitly to it or to its writer.

1 As Prof. Adeney insists, comparing 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the score of literary dependence, "it is one thing to lean upon Paul and even James, and another thing to absorb and utilise virtually the whole of the short epistle of so obscure a writer as Jude" (BI, p. 449).

2 He finally conjectured that Πέτρος καὶ ἀπόστολος (11), ὁ ἀγατ. ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς (315), and 17 were interpolations. Bartlet (AA, pp. 518-521) similarly tries to detach 21-37(13) as an apocalyptic section added to an originally Petrine note of 62-63 A.D.

3 In this way, if 120-33 could be taken as an interpolation, some part of the epistle might be saved as genuinely Petrine. But the hypothesis is an untenable compromise, and has rightly met with scant acceptance (cp. Usteri's ed. of 1 Peter,

315 f.), though Gess (Das Apost. Zeugniss von Christi Person, II. 2. p. 414 f.) holds that 1:06-33 certainly forms an unauthentic insertion.

and the Bible, pp. 227, 228) suggested that phrases like 110 (σrovdáσaTe βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι) and 38-13 may have really been Petrine phrases which survived and floated in men's memories, though the context had been lost. But this is highly improbable. The phrases are perfectly natural and can be paralleled elsewhere; the words of 21 follow 121 without serious jolting; and a pseudonymous writer required no hint or occasion, beyond the existence of a genuine 1 Peter and a Petrine tradition, to speak in the apostle's name. Besides, as Chase (DB, iii. p. 814 f.) shows, the coincidences with Apoc. Pet. extend over chap. 1 as well as over chap. 2. Kühl (-Meyer), however, still holds to his hypothesis that a genuine Petrine letter is preserved in this epistle, less 21-32 which represents a later interpolation.

5

N.B.-In connection with the survey of constructions and analyses on pp. 700-704, it ought to have been observed that Professor B. W. Bacon, in his acute and trustworthy summary of Pauline chronology (Exp. x. pp. 351 f., 412-430), already referred to on page 133, approximates in part to Dr. McGiffert, regarding 2 Tim 49. 11-18. 26. 21 a), with fragments of 1 Tim as genuinely Pauline material which dated from the period of 2 Corinthians (end of 54 A.D.) and originated in Macedonia; the rest of 2 Tim (less 113. 14 214-317 43-4, which are interpolations) must fall into the period of Philippians, which is the latest of the Captivity-epistles. Fragments from Titus are to be placed, with some hesitation, along with 2 Co 101-1310, which Professor Bacon identifies with the intermediate letter to Corinth (as above, p. 177), written in 54 A.D., perhaps after a visit to Crete (?), but certainly subsequent to the fragment 2 Co 614-71 (as above, pp. 628, 629). On this scheme Galatians is also placed, as in the present edition, between Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians. In regard to the general chronology, however, Professor Bacon proceeds upon rather an independent road (vide above, pp. 134-136). He fixes the conversion of Paul, 31 (34) A.D.; his first visit to Jerusalem, 33 (36?); his first mission tour, 44-46; his arrival at Corinth, 50 (early spring); his flight from Ephesus, 54 (July-Aug.); his arrest in Jerusalem, 55 (May); his arrival at Rome, 58 (February); and his defence before Nero, 60. Such an outline of events obviously involves some important modifications of the "new" chronology as well as of the traditional scheme.

ADDENDA

PAGE 28 n.- -On the relation of this colophon in Matthew to the work of Papias, which also had a five-fold division (ovyypáμμata tévTE, Euseb. HE, III. 38), see Nestle, ZNW, 1900, pp. 252-254.

Page 44 n.--An excellent popular statement of this familiar law may be found in Dr. E. B. Tylor's Anthropology, chap. xv. ("History and Mythology"). As he correctly points out, "it is often possible to satisfy oneself that some story is not really history, by knowing the causes which led to its being invented." This principle, of course, is the supreme organon of tendency-criticism.

Page 51 n. 1.-Was the public for which the early Christian literature was intended, exclusively Christian? Or did it embrace an audience such as that contemplated by the author of 2 Macc (224. 25), numbering some who were merely interested, possibly sympathetic-like the father of Maitland of Lethington, "civil, albeit not persuaded in religion"? This legitimate question has been recently raised in several quarters; by J. Weiss (Ueber die Absicht der Apgeschichte, p. 56), à propos of Acts and Romans; by Zahn (Einl. ii. pp. 359 f.), who conjectures that Theophilus was a pagan, first converted by reading the third gospel; and by Wernle (ZNW, 1900, pp. 42-65), who brings out a distinct "apologetic" element in the composition of all the gospels. With the scanty data at our command, it is not easy to determine whether such an outside reference existed in all or any of these cases, and if so, to what extent. Early Christianity, as a whole, was neither the life of a sequestered ghetto nor a crusade appealing to the public mind.

Page 242.-In the recently discovered (Greek) fragment of the Ascensio Isaiae, the death of Peter is connected closely with the Neronic persecution. As restored by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt, the passage runs: ὁ βασιλεὺς οὗτος τὴν φυτείαν ἣν φυτεύσουσιν οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ διώξει, καὶ τῶν δώδεκα εἷς ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτου Tapadoonσera (Amherst Papyri, pt. 1. 1900). For a discussion of this, and of the conjectural Testament embedded in the larger document, see Dr. R. H. Charles' new edition (The Ascension of Isaiah), which supersedes most previous work upon the subject. Page 258.—It was no imaginary danger which the rise of evangelic stories averted from the Christian consciousness, from c. 60 A.D. and onwards. In the flush and rush of spiritual phenomena there was always an ecstatic enthusiasm which tended to swamp the historical tradition of Jesus. "That the church surmounted this peril is one of the great deeds of the Providence of God. And what saved the church? Not spiritual speculation like that of Paul, which could not afford any guarantee that it would keep by the track of the gospel as given in history. It was simply owing to the infinite impression made by the historical Jesus, that the historical character of Christianity did not suffer loss. In this respect, the memory of Jesus paralysed the spiritual phenomena of the apostolic age and survived them for more than a thousand years" (Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus,2 p. 56).

Page 260 f.-A similar practical motive for authorship is plainly avowed in the well-known prologue to Ecclesiasticus (also 2 Esdras 1422–152, Baruch 114). Page 268.-"Non fuit Matthaeo curae historiam ut gesta erat texere sed Christi doctrinam exprimere " (Maldonatus, a Jesuit of the sixteenth century, quoted by Jülicher, Gleichnisreden Jesu, i. p. 3).

Page 273.-Baljon, in his recent edition (Commentaar op het Evangelie van Matthaeus, 1900), places Matthew's gospel shortly after 70 A.D., written by a Jew of the Dispersion, who naturally inclined to semiJewish forms in exhibiting the gospel-story.

Page 416.-In an elaborate textual study (Der abendländische Text der Apgeschichte u. die Wir-Quelle, 1900), A. Pott attributes Acts to an editor who worked up, with other materials, a Lucan account of Paul which included the we-journal. Much of the Western text he explains as due to glosses, existing in two separate textual forms. Page 416 n. 1.—It is not improbable, as Mr. Cross suggests, that similarities such as those referred to on p. 272 are due to the fact that these writers all followed a conventional literary form in composing their prefaces and dedications.

Pages 143, 461.-Willrich does his best to fill up these years after 30 A.D. by assigning to them quite a number of Alexandrian Jewish productions, chiefly pseudepigrapha; he puts Jason of Cyrene not earlier than the reign of Claudius, and 2 Maccabees actually after 70 A.D. (Judaica, 1900, pp. 40-130).

Page 463.-I am glad to find these two points (the dual authorship of the Apocalypse and the fourth gospel, and the literary function of the early Christian prophets) now thrown into sharp relief by Dr. E. C. Selwyn in his stimulating study of The Christian Prophets (1900). Pages 132, 559.—A diverting example of reconstruction in this department is furnished by Lisco in his new volume (Vincula Sanctorum, "Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Ap. Paulus," 1900). For reasons as precarious in exegesis as in tradition, he places the prison-epistles in an Ephesian crisis and captivity of Paul; after 2 Co A (see page 178, above), Titus and Col-Ephes come, previous to the trial; thereafter 2 Tim and Philippians, followed by BC (with 1 Co 15) written after his release.

Page 606. Recently, in his latest volume Clue (1900), Dr. E. A. Abbott attempts to exhibit a biblical Hebrew original underlying portions of the synoptic gospels.

Pages 145, 626.-The partition-theories applied, especially by Spitta, to 2 Thessalonians are reviewed by Professor G. G. Findlay in Exp.6 (October 1900), pp. 251–261.

Pages 259, 645.-This slowness and reluctance to adopt writing for religious purposes may be illustrated by the remarkable legend of Numa's burial (Plutarch, Vit. Num. 22). Of the two stone coffins, one contained the Emperor's sacred books, which were composed by him and then buried at his request, in order that the sacred mysteries might duly be preserved in their proper home, i.e. in the minds of living men, not in books without a soul. He had already taught their contents to the priests as an oral tradition. Page 691 f.-Another rearrangement (1022 before 812) in JTS (1900), v. Pages 30, 694, 695.-The "I" and " we "of authorship actually occur in

the gospel of Peter, where they are plainly introduced to heighten the claim to apostolic authorship and dignity.