extending through thousands of years, finding at last its most exalted
expression in the messages of the Hebrew prophets, and its clearest
reflection in the thoughts and experiences of the priests, sages, and
psalmists of ancient Israel. In varied literary forms and by many
different writers the best fruits of that revelation have been
preserved. Ancient traditions, songs, proverbs, laws, historical
narratives, prophecies, and psalms, each present their precious truth.
The Israelitish race, however, never fully completed the work to which
it was called. A master was needed to distinguish between the essential
and the non-essential, to simplify and unify the teachings of the Old
Testament as a whole, and to apply them personally to individual life, A
man was demanded to realize fully in his own character the highest
ideals of this ancient revelation. A divinely gifted prophet was
required to perfect man's knowledge, and to bring him into natural,
harmonious relations with his Eternal Father. The world awaited the
advent of a Messiah who would establish, on the everlasting foundations
of justice and truth and love, the universal kingdom of God. These
supreme needs were met in fullest measure by the Master, the perfect
Man, the Prophet, and the Messiah, whose work the New Testament records.
[Sidenote: _Points of likeness and contact between the two Testaments_]
While there are many superficial points of difference in language,
literary form, background, and point of view between the Old and the New
Testaments, these are insignificant in comparison with the essential
points of likeness and contact. Each Testament is but a different
chapter in the history of the same divine revelation. The one is
the foundation on which the other is built. The writers of the New
constantly assume the historical facts, the institutions, and the
teachings of the Old. Although in Greek garb, their language and idioms
are also those of the Old. On many themes, as, for example, man's duty
to society, Jesus said little, for the teachers of his race had fully
developed them and there was little to add. Repeatedly by word and act
he declared that he came not to destroy the older teachings, but simply
to bring them to full perfection. The Old Testament also tells of
the long years of preparation and of the earnest expectations of the
Israelitish race; the New records a fulfilment far transcending the
most exalted hopes of Hebrew seers. The same God reveals himself through
both Testaments. One progressively unfolding system of religious
teachings, one message of love, and one divine purpose bind both
together with bonds that no generation or church can break.
V
THE INFLUENCES THAT PRODUCED THE NEW TESTAMENT
[Sidenote: _Importance of the study of origins_]
The present age is supremely interested in origins. Not until we have
traced the genesis and earliest unfolding of an institution or an idea
or a literature do we feel that we really understand and appreciate it.
Familiarity with that which is noble breeds not contempt but reverence,
and intelligent devotion. Acquaintance with the origin and history of a
book is essential to its true interpretation. Therefore it is fortunate
that modern discovery and research have thrown so much light upon the
origin of both the Old and the New Testaments.
[Sidenote: _The growing recognition that the natural is divine_]
Equally fortunate is it that we are also learning to appreciate the
sublimity and divinity of the natural. The universe and organic life are
no less wonderful and awe-inspiring because, distinguishing some of the
natural laws that govern their evolution, we have abandoned the
grotesque theories held by primitive men. Similarly we do not to-day
demand, as did our forefathers, a supernatural origin for our sacred
books before we are ready to revere and obey their commands. With
greater insight we now can heartily sing, "God moves in a natural way
his wonders to perform." Our ability to trace the historical influences
through which he brought into being and shaped the two Testaments and
gave them their present position in the life of humanity does not in a
thoughtful mind obscure, but rather reveals the more clearly, their
divine origin and authority.
[Sidenote: _Value of the comparative study of the origin of both
Testaments_]
Through contemporary writings and the results of modern biblical
research it is possible to study definitely the origin of the various
New Testament books and to follow the different stages in their growth
into a canon. This familiar chapter in the history of the Bible is
richly suggestive, because of the clear light which it sheds upon the
more complex and obscure genesis and later development of the Old
Testament. It will be profitable, therefore, to review it in outline,
not only because of its own importance, but also as an introduction to
the study of the influences that produced the older Scriptures; for
almost every fact that will be noted in connection with the origin and
literary history of the New has its close analogy in the growth of the
Old Testament.
[Sidenote: _The threefold grouping of the New Testament books_]
We find that as they are at present arranged, the books of the New
Testament are divided into three distinct classes. The first group
includes the historical books: the Gospels and Acts; the second, the
Epistles--the longer, like the letters to the Romans and Corinthians,
being placed first and the shorter at the end; while the third group
contains but one book, known as the Apocalypse or Revelation. The
general arrangement is clearly according to subject-matter, not
according to date of authorship; the order of the groups represent
different stages in the process of canonization.
[Sidenote: _Why the Gospels are not the earliest_]
Their position as well as the themes which they treat suggest that the
Gospels were the first to be written. It is, however, a self-evident
fact that a book was not written--at least not in antiquity, when the
making of books was both laborious and expensive--unless a real need for
it was felt. If we go back, and live for a moment in imagination among
the band of followers which Jesus left behind at his death, we see
clearly that while the early Christian Church was limited to Palestine,
and a large company of disciples, who had often themselves seen and
heard the Christ, lived to tell by word of mouth the story of his life
and teachings, no one desired a written record. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the oldest books in the New Testament are not the
Gospels. The exigencies of time and space and the burning zeal of the
apostles for the churches of their planting apparently produced the
earliest Christian writings.
[Sidenote: _Origin of the earliest epistles_]
In his second missionary journey Paul preached for a time at
Thessalonica, winning to faith in the Christ a small mixed company of
Jews and proselyte Greeks. His success aroused the bitter opposition of
the narrower Jews, who raised a mob and drove him from the city before
his work was completed. But the seed which he had planted continued to
grow. Naturally he was eager to return to the infant church. Twice he
planned to visit it, but was prevented. In his intense desire to help
the brave Christians of Thessalonica, he sent Timothy to inquire
regarding their welfare and to encourage them. When about 50 A.D.
Timothy reported to Paul at Corinth, the apostle wrote at once to the
little church at Thessalonica a letter of commendation, encouragement,
and counsel, which we know to-day as First Thessalonians and which is
probably one of the oldest writings in our New Testament, Galatians
perhaps being the earliest.
[Sidenote: _Paul's later epistles_]
Another letter (II Thess.) soon followed, giving more detailed advice.
As the field of Paul's activity broadened, he was obliged more and more
to depend upon letters, since he could not in person visit the churches
which he had planted. Questions of doctrine as well as of practice which
perplexed the different churches were treated in these epistles. To
certain of his assistants, like Timothy, he wrote dealing with their
personal problems. Frankly, forcibly, and feelingly Paul poured out in
these letters the wealth of his personal and soul life. They reveal his
faith in the making as well as his mature teachings. Since he was
dealing with definite conditions in the communities to which he wrote,
his letters are also invaluable contemporary records of the growth and
history of the early Christian church. Thus between 30 and 60 A.D.,
during the period of his greatest activity, certainly ten, and probably
thirteen, of our twenty-seven New Testament books came from the burning
heart of the apostle to the Gentiles.
[Sidenote: _Growth of the other epistles_]
Similar needs impelled other apostles and early Christian teachers to
write on the same themes with the same immediate purpose as did Paul.
The result is a series of epistles, associated with the names of James,
Peter, John, and Jude. In some, like Third John, the personal element is
predominant; in others, the didactic, as, for example, the Epistle of
James.
[Sidenote: _Purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews_]
A somewhat different type of literature is represented by the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Its form is that of a letter, and it was without doubt
originally addressed to a local church or churches by a writer whose
name has ever since been a fertile source of conjecture. The only fact
definitely established is that Paul did not write it. It is essentially
a combination of argument, doctrine, and exhortation. The aim is
apologetic as well as practical. Most of Paul's letters were written as
the thoughts, which he wished to communicate to those to whom he wrote,
came to his mind; but in the Epistle to the Hebrews the author evidently
follows a carefully elaborated plan. The argument is cumulative. The
thesis is that Christ, superior to all earlier teachers of his race, is
the perfect Mediator of Salvation.
[Sidenote: _Value of the Epistles_]
Thus the Epistles, originally personal notes of encouragement and
warning, growing sometimes into more elaborate treatises, were made the
means whereby the early Christian teachers imparted their doctrines to
constantly widening groups of readers. At best they were regarded simply
as inferior substitutes for the personal presence and spoken words of
their authors. Like the Old Testament books, their authority lies in the
fact that they faithfully reflect, in part at least, the greater
revelation coming through the lives and minds of the early apostles.
[Sidenote: _The larger group_]
As is well known, the twenty-one letters in our New Testament were
selected from a far larger collection of epistles, some of which were
early lost, while others, like the Epistles of Barnabas and Polycarp and
Clement, were preserved to share with those later accepted as canonical,
the study and veneration of the primitive Church.
[Sidenote: _Influences that gave rise to the earliest Gospels_]
The influences which originally produced the Gospels and Acts were very
different from those which called forth the Epistles. The natural
preference of the early Christians for the spoken word explains why we
do not possess to-day a single written sentence in the Gospels which we
can with absolute assurance assign to the first quarter-century
following the death of Jesus. Two influences, however, in time led
certain writers to record his early life and teachings. The one was that
death was rapidly thinning the ranks of those who could say, _I saw and
heard_; the other was the spread of Christianity beyond the bounds of
Judaism and Palestine, and the resulting need for detailed records felt
by those Christians who had never visited Palestine and who had learned
from the lips of apostles only the barest facts regarding the life of
the Christ.
[Sidenote: _Testimony of Luke's Gospel_]
The opening verses of Luke's Gospel are richly suggestive of the origin
and growth of the historical books of the New Testament:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning
those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered
them unto us,--they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the
course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty
concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.
This prologue states that many shorter Gospels had previously been
written, not by eye-witnesses, but by men who had listened to those who
had themselves seen. Luke leaves his readers to infer that he also drew
a large number of his facts from these earlier sources as well as from
the testimony of eye-witnesses. The implication of the prologue is that
he himself was entirely dependent upon written and oral sources for his
data. This is confirmed by the testimony of the _Muratorian Fragment_:
Luke the physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken
him, as it were, as a follower zealous of the right, wrote the gospel
book according to Luke in his own name, as is believed. Nevertheless he
had not himself seen the Lord in the flesh, and, accordingly, going back
as far as he could obtain information, he began his narrative with the
birth of John.
His many literal quotations from it and the fact that he makes it the
framework of his own, indicate that Mark's Gospel was one of those
earlier attempts to which he refers.
[Sidenote: _Luke's motive in writing_]
The motive which influenced Luke to write is clearly stated. It was to
prepare a comprehensive, accurate, and orderly account of the facts in
regard to the life of Jesus for his Greek friend Theophilus, who had
already been partially instructed in the same. His Gospel confirms the
implications of the prologue. It is the longest and most carefully
arranged of all the Gospels. The distinctively Jewish ideas or
institutions which are prominent in Matthew are omitted or else
explained; hence there is nothing which would prove unintelligible to a
Greek. The book of the Acts of the Apostles, dedicated to the same
patron, is virtually a continuation of the third Gospel, tracing, in a
more or less fragmentary manner, the history and growth, of the early
Christian Church, and especially the work of Paul.
[Sidenote: _Purpose of Mark's Gospel_]
Very similar influences called forth the shortest and undoubtedly the
oldest of the four Gospels, the book of Mark. The testimony of the
contents confirms in general the early statement of Papias and other
Christian Fathers that it was written at Rome by John Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of the apostle Peter, after the death of his teacher.
The absence of many Old Testament quotations, the careful explanation of
all Jewish and Palestinian references which would not be intelligible to
a foreigner, the presence of certain Latin words, and many other
indications, all tend to establish the conclusion that it was written
for the Gentile and Jewish Christians, probably at Rome, and that its
purpose was simply historical.
[Sidenote: _The two-fold purpose of the Gospel of Matthew_]
The memoir of Jesus, which we know as the Gospel of Matthew, is from the
hand of a Jewish Christian and, as is shown by the amount of material
drawn from Mark's Gospel, must be placed at a later date. The great
number of quotations from the Old Testament, the interest in tracing the
fulfilment of the Messianic predictions, and the distinctively Jewish-
Christian point of view and method of interpretation, indicate clearly
that he wrote not with Gentile but Jewish Christians in mind.
Nevertheless, like that of Mark and Luke, his purpose was primarily to
present a faithful and, as far as his sources permitted, detailed
picture of the life and teachings of Jesus. His arrangement of his
material appears, however, to be logical rather than purely
chronological. The different sections and the individual incidents and
teachings each contribute to the great argument of the book, namely,
that Jesus was the true Messiah of the Jews; that the Jews, since they
rejected him, forfeited their birthright; and that his kingdom,
fulfilling and inheriting the Old Testament promises, has become a
universal kingdom, open to all races and freed from all Jewish bonds.
[Footnote: Cf. e.g., x. 5, 6; xv. 24; viii. 11, 12; xii. 38-45; xxi. 42,
43; xxii. 7; xxiii. 13, 36, 38; xxiv. 2; xxviii. 19] This suggests that
the First Gospel represents a more mature stage in the thought of the
early Church than Mark and Luke.
[Sidenote: _Origin of Matthew's Sayings of Jesus_]
Its title and the fact that the Church Fathers constantly connect it
with Matthew, the publican, and later apostle is explained by the
statement of Papias, quoted by Eusebius:
Matthew accordingly composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and
each one interpreted them as he was able (H.E., iii. 39). These oracles
evidently consisted of a written collection of the sayings of Jesus.
Since they were largely if not entirely included in our First Gospel,
It was therefore known as The _Gospel of Matthew_. There is no evidence
that the original Matthew's _Sayings of Jesus_ contained definite
narrative material. The fact that the First Gospel draws so largely from
Mark for its historical data would indicate that this was not supplied
by its main source. The _Sayings of Jesus_ was probably the oldest
written record of the work of Jesus, for, while oral tradition, easily
remembers incidents, disconnected teachings are not so readily preserved
by the memory. Their transcendent importance would also furnish a
strong incentive to use the pen. It was natural also that, of all the
disciples, the ex-customs officer of Capernaum should be the one to
undertake this transcendently important task.
[Sidenote: _Aim of the The Fourth Gospel_]
The Fourth is clearly the latest of the Gospels, for it does not attempt
fully to reproduce the facts presented in the other three, but assumes
their existence. Its doctrines are also more fully developed, and its
aim is not simply the giving of historical facts and teachings, but
also, as it clearly states, that those reading it _might believe that
Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, and that believing they might have
life in his name_ (xx. 31). The motive that produced it was, therefore,
apologetic and evangelical rather than merely historical.
[Sidenote: _Review of growth of the Gospels_]
A detailed comparison of the differences between the Gospels, as well as
of their many points of likeness which often extend to exact verbal
agreement, furnishes the data for reconstructing their history. In
general the resulting conclusions are in perfect harmony with the
testimony of the Church Fathers. Mark, the shortest and more
distinctively narrative Gospel, is clearly the oldest of the four.
Possibly it was originally intended to be the supplement of the other
early source, Matthew's _Sayings of Jesus_, now known only through
quotations. These two earliest known Christian records of the work of
the Master in their original form were the chief sources quoted in the
First and Third Gospels. So largely is Mark thus reproduced that, if
lost, it would be possible from these to restore the book with the
exception of only a few verses. But in addition, Matthew and Luke each
have material peculiar to themselves, suggesting other independent
written as well as oral sources. To such shorter written Gospels, and
also to the oral testimony of eyewitnesses, Luke refers in his prologue.
In the Fourth Gospel, the doctrinal motive already apparent in Matthew,
and prominent in the Church at the beginning of the second Christian
century, takes the precedence of the merely historical. A distinct
source, the personal observation of the beloved disciple, probably also
furnishes the majority of the illustrations which are here so
effectively arrayed.
[Sidenote: _Influences that produced the apocalypses_]
More complex were the influences which produced the single example of
the third type of New Testament literature,--the Apocalypse, or Book of
Revelation. The so-called apocalyptic type of literature was a
characteristic product of later Judaism. The Book of Daniel is the most
familiar example. Although in the age of scribism the voice of the
prophets was regarded as silent, and the only authority recognized was
that of the past, the popular Messianic hopes of the people continued to
find expression anonymously in the form of apocalypses. In the periods
of their greatest distress Jews and Christians found encouragement and
inspiration in the pictures of the future. Since the present situation
was so hopeless, they looked for a supernatural transformation, which
would result in the triumph of the right and the establishment of the
rule of the Messiah. Underlying all the apocalypses is the eternal truth
voiced by the poet: "God's in his heaven and all's right with the
world."
[Sidenote: _Origin of the Book of Revelation_]
The immediate historical background of the Apocalypse is the bitter
struggle between Christianity and heathenism. Rome has become _drunk
with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus_
(xvii. 6). The contest centres about the worship of the beast,--that
is, Caesar. The book possibly includes older apocalypses which reflect
earlier conflicts, but in its present form it apparently comes from
the closing years of Domitian's reign. The obvious aim of its Jewish
Christian writer was to encourage his readers by glowing pictures of
the coming victory of the Lamb, and thus to steel them for unfaltering
resistance to the assaults of heathenism. The purpose which actuated the
writer was therefore in certain respects the same as that which led Paul
to write his letter to the persecuted church of Thessalonica, although
the form in which that purpose was realized was fundamentally different.
[Sidenote: _The literary activity of the first four centuries_]
Many other apocalypses were written by the early Christians. The one
recently discovered and associated with the name of Peter is perhaps the
most important. Thus, the second half of the first century after the
death of Jesus witnessed the birth of a large Christian literature,
consisting of epistles, gospels, and apocalypses. The work of the next
three centuries was the appreciation and the selection of the books
which, to-day constitute our New Testament. The influences which led
to this consummation may be followed almost as clearly as those which
produced the individual books.
[Sidenote: _Influences that led to the canonization of the Gospels_]
Early in the second century the motives which had originally led certain
Christians to write the four Gospels induced the Church to regard those
books as the most authentic, and therefore authoritative, records of the
life and teachings of the Master. We have no distinctive history of the
process. It was gradual, and probably almost unconscious. The fact that
three of the Gospels were associated with the names of apostles and the
other with Luke, the faithful companion of Paul, undoubtedly tended to
establish their authority; but the chief canonizing influence was the
need of such records for private and public reading. The production,
early in the second century, of spurious gospels, like the Gospel of
Marcion, written to furnish a literary basis for certain heretical
doctrines, also the desire of the Church Fathers to have records to
which they could appeal as authoritative hastened the formation of the
first New Testament canon. The use of the Gospels in the services of the
church, which probably began before the close of the first Christian
century, by degrees gave them an authority equal to that of the Old
Testament Scriptures. The earliest canon consisted simply of these four
books. They seem to have been universally accepted by the Western Church
by the middle of the second century. About 152 A.D. Justin Martyr, in
proving his positions, refers to the _Memoirs of the Apostles compiled
by Christ's apostles and those who associated with them_, and during the
same decade his pupil Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ by combining our
present four Gospels.
[Sidenote: _The second edition of the New Testament_]
Meantime the natural desire to supplement the teachings of Jesus by
those of the Apostles led the Church to single out certain of the
epistles and associate them with the Gospels. Already in the first
century the apostolic epistles and traditions were cherished by the
individual churches to which they had been first directed. In time,
however, the need for a written record of the apostolic teachings and
work became widely felt. Hence, by the end of the second century, Acts
and the thirteen Pauline epistles, First Peter, First John, and the
Apocalypse, were by common consent placed side by side with the Gospels,
at least by the leaders of the Western Church.
[Sidenote: _The disputed books_]