James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 91 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 91 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

2. The martyrdom of Stephen. The date of
this event is fixed with approximate certainty by
its relation to the conversion of St. Paul. It was
the persecution following the death of Stephen
which enlisted Saul in the effort to exterminate
the nascent Christian community and thus led him
on the way to Damascus and his conversion.
Stephen's martyrdom could not therefore have
preceded the conversion by a very long interval,
and must have taken place between 32 and 34.

3. The execution of James the son of Zebedee,
together with the imprisonment and deliverance of
St. Peter, is so closely associated with the death of
Herod that both these events may be safely placed
in the same year (44).*

4. The rise of Antioch into prominence as a
centre of Christian aggressiveness must be placed
at some time before the year 46, though, from the
nature of the case, the exact time cannot be fixed.
From Ac 2 X (cf. Tacit. Ann. xv. 44) it is clear
that some time before the year of the famine there
was a large number of believers to attract atten-
tion and to be recognized as a type of religionists
different from the Jews. Immediately after the
year of the famine the church at Antioch became
the fountain-head of missionary activity.

5. The Conference at Jerusalem 'is placed,
through its relation to the missionary journeys
of St. Paul, in the year 50.

6. The death of James the brother of Jesus.
From the time of the Conference at Jerusalem, St.
James was recognized as one of the foremost men
in the Christian community at Jerusalem (Ac 15 13 ,
Gal 2 s ). In consequence of his relation to the
mother church, he bears the title of bishop of that
church. According to Josephus, he was put to
death during the interregnum between the pro-
curatorships of Festus and Albinus (Ant. XX. ix.
1). This was in the year 62.

7. The death of St. Peter For the date of St.
Peter's death we are obliged to appeal to extra-
historical (purely traditional) information. The
difficulties of estimating the value of such informa-
tion are due (1) to the absence of sufficient data
regarding the original witnesses on whose authority
such information secured circulation, and (2) to
the facility with which even good historians in
antiquity accepted unverified statements where
events of importance were concerned. The desire
for some definite data often overcame whatever
intuitive sense of accuracy may at other times
have ruled the outlook of these historians. Thus
tradition, i.e. the un verifiable belief of an age not
capable of direct contact with the facts, may be
credited frequently with a high degree of pro-
bability, more frequently with less probability;
in most instances it is incapable of giving more
than the mere possibility of what it attests. In
the case of the death of St. Peter several consider-
ations conspire to render the tradition highly
probable. The Apostle was in Rome at a time of
persecution. This appears from the contents of

* In a recently published fragment of Papias (de Boor, TU
v. 2, p. 170) it is said that 'John and James his brother were
killed by the Jews.' This, together with the bracketing of the
names of the two brothers in the Martyrology on the same day,
has led some to infer that the death of John the son of Zebedee
took place in 44. The question, however, is involved in the
vexed problem of the identity of the author of the Fourth
Gospel, and must be left open for further investigation and
discussion. See art JAMES AND JOHN (sons of Zebedee).

1 Peter, irrespective of the genuineness of the
writing. Even if it be assumed, as seems probable
to many scholars, that it was composed about A.D.
80, it would issue from a period near enough the
date of the reputed death of St. Peter to afford a
reflexion of a living current belief regarding his
experiences. The allusion to ' Babylon ' in the
Epistle has from the days of Papias (Euseb. HE
ii. 15) to the present time (with slight exceptions)
been taken to refer to Rome. From this city the
Apostle, according to Papias, sent the letter to his
fellow-Christians dispersed and scattered by the
persecution of which he was made a victim. But,
even granting that the martyrdom of the Apostle
occurred in the Neronian persecution, the question
of the exact year remains uncertain. Harnack
believes that it took place in 64 (Gesch. der
altchristl. Lit. bis Euseb., pt. i. 'Chron.,' 249 ft'.).
Erbes (TU, new series, iv. [1900]) fixes it in 63.
Of the older historians, William Cave (Lives of
the Apostles, 1677, ' St. Peter,' xi. 7) also believed
in the date 64. In the Chronicon of Eusebins, how-
ever, the 13th or 14th year of Nero (67-68) is given
as the date, and the same conclusion is accepted
by Jerome. The tradition of the Roman Catholic
Church has uniformly adhered to the period 42-67
as ' the twenty-five year episcopate ' of the Apostle
in Rome. Upon the whole, this later date seems
best supported. See IV. 5 and art. PETEE.

8. The pre-eminence of Ephesus in Christian
activity may be generally placed in connexion
with the ministry of St. Paul in that city ; but its
rise to the first rank as the seat of apostolic
influence under John (the Presbyter?) must have
followed the Fall of Jerusalem, but cannot be fixed
with precision.

9. The death of St. John, ' the beloved disciple,'
is associated by tradition with his residence at
Ephesus to an extreme old age, occurring in the
reign of Trajan (98-117). See art. JAMES AND
JOHN (sons or Zebedee).

VIII. LITERARY DATES. Nothing in the Apos-
tolic Age was fuller of significance for the future
than the production of the NT writings. But,
while the dates of production of a few of these are
comparatively easy to determine, the majority do
not afford sufficient data for the positive solution
of the problem as it affects them.

1. The Epistle of James. Discussions of the
date of this writing are based for the most part on
the neutral features of it. The character of the
audience to which it is addressed does not betray
an advanced development of Christian thought or
practice. There is no allusion to Gentiles in the
Church. Compact organization has not yet been
achieved, and it is possible for teachers (didda-KaXoi)
to assume the function at will (3 1 ; cf. Ac 13 1 , Ro
12 7 ). The eschatological outlook still includes the
vivid expectation of the Parousia (5 7 ' 9 ), which has
not been disputed as in 2 P 3 s ' 9 . In general the
author addresses Jews as if the new doctrine of
Christianity were the legitimate and rightful
outcome or historic Judaism. Such a point of
view was natural in the early beginnings when
the challenge to Christianity was still in its first
forms, but scarcely after the rupture between
Judaism and the Church had issued in open
and wholesale hostilities on each side. On the
other hand, certain characteristics of language
and style, together with supposed allusions to the
Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, have led
others to assume an extremely late date for the
Epistle. Upon the whole, it seems probable that
the date 40 to 44 is the correct one. Cf. JAMES,

2. The Thessalonian Epistles. The First
Epistle was written during the sojourn at Corinth
(Ac 18"). The reference to Achaia (I 7f> ) is decisive




on this point. The view that Athens was the
place of writing, held by Theodoret and many
ancient Fathers, is deduced from 3 1 , which, how-
ever, evidently refers to a stay at Athens some-
what anterior to the composition of the Epistle.
Since the Corinthian sojourn falls in 52-53, 1 Thess.
must be dated accordingly. The Second Epistle
could not have been written much later than its
predecessor. It is evidently designed to explain
what was misunderstood in 1 Thess. (2 Th 2 2 ), and
aims to do this as speedily as possible. Cf.

3. Galatians. The date of Galatians has been
made the subject of a new discussion as the con-
sequence of the promulgation of the South Galatian
theory of its destination. The traditional dating
of the document based on the North Galatian
destination fixed it in the sojourn of the Apostle
at Ephesus (Ac 19 1 ). The reasons for this view
are that St. Paul proceeded from Galatia to
Ephesus (Ac 18 23 ), and must have written either
before he reached that city (which is improbable)
or during his sojourn, or perhaps on the way from
Ephesus to Corinth. The rise of the South Gala-
tian theory, however, renders it possible to think
of a much earlier date. Accordingly, many argue
for its priority over all the Pauline writings
(Emilie Briggs, New World, 1900, p. 115ff. ; C. W.
Emmet, Expositor, 1th set. , ix. [1910] 242 ff.; Garvie,
Studies of Paul and his Gospel, 1911, p. 23 ff.);
some trace it even to a time anterior to the Con-
ference at Jerusalem. Calvin, singularly, held
this view (cf. Com. on Gal 2 1 ), fixing the date at 48
or 49. Had St. Paul written it as early as this
date, however, he must have named Barnabas,
who was still with him in his labours. Upon the
whole, the year 54 still appears the most probable
for the writing of this Epistle. See, further, art.

4. The Corinthian Epistles. The First Epistle
was written in Ephesus some time before Pentecost
(1 Co 16 8 ), whether before or after the Passover
does not appear (5 6 ' 8 ). The Apostle was expecting
to leave very soon ; and the writing must, there-
fore, be placed towards the close of the stay at
Ephesus, hence about the time of the Passover in
56. On the assumption of the unity of 2 Cor., the
interval between it and the First Epistle could not
have been very long, and the writing must accord-
ingly be placed somewhat later in the same year.
But, if the Epistle is a composite one, as it seems
reasonable to believe upon good critical grounds,
the probabilities are that the earliest section of it
(e 14 -? 1 ) constitutes a fragment of a letter earlier
than 1 Corinthians. The second section in point
of time is 2 Co 10-13 ('the painful letter') and re-
presents the sequel to 1 Cor., growing out of the
situation created by the last-named communication.
This portion of 2 Cor. is accordingly to be located
in 56 as above. The remainder of the composite
document (2 Co 1-9, exc. e 14 -? 1 ) must be dated later
than chs. 10-13, but is not necessarily separated
from this section by a long interval. If the phrases
' since last year ' (airb wtpvo-i), ' a year ago ' (2 Co
8 10 ), 'for a year past' (9 2 ) refer to 1 Co 16 1 , approxi-
mately one year must have intervened between
this portion of 2 Cor. and the First Epistle. This
would bring the date to 57. Thus the dates of St.
Paul's letters to Corinth would be : (1) 2 Co 6 14 -? 1
in 55 or early 56 ; (2) 1 Cor. in 56 before Pentecost ;
(3) 2 Co 10-13 in summer of 56 ; (4) 2 Co 1-9, late

5. Romans. Since Ho 15 must be regarded as
an original part of the whole Epistle (cf. Moffatt,
LNT, p. 143), the allusion in v. 25 to St. Paul's in-
tended journey to Jerusalem fixes the point of
departure for the date of the Epistle. The state-
ment in v. 19 that the Apostle had 'fulfilled' the

gospel ' from Jerusalem and round about even unto
Illyricum,' has led some to place the writing of
Romans in Illyricum ; but the greater probability
lies with the view which identifies the place with
Corinth, and fixes the date as the eve of St. Paul's
departure thence for 'Syria' (Ac 20 s ). This was
in the spring of 58 (during the Apostle's three
months' sojourn at Corinth). See art. ROMANS,

6. The Imprisonment Epistles. Under this title
are usually included Ephesians, Colossians, Philip-
pians, and Philemon. Ephesians is by many made
an exception to this class. The period of St. Paul's
imprisonment, however, is divided into two parts
by nis removal from Caesarea to Rome. Assuming
the Pauline authority of Ephesians, it has been,
with Colossians and Philemon, located in the
Csesarean period of his imprisonment (56-60 ; so
Meyer, Weiss, Sabatier [The Apostle Paul, 1891,
pp. 225-249]). Others have included even Philip-
pians in this list. But it is difficult to think of
Philippians and Philemon as composed elsewhere
than in Rome and during the Roman part of the
imprisonment (cf. the reasons in a summary by
Bleek, Einleitung in das NT*, 1885, 161). It is
possible, though not probable, however, that Col.,
which was written earlier than Eph., may have
fallen within the latter portion of the Csesarean
imprisonment. In such a case the order and dates
of these writings would be: (1) Colossians in 59
(Csesarea) ; (2) Ephesians in 60 (Rome) ; (3) Phile-
mon in 60 (Rome) ; (4) Philippians in 61 (Rome).
See artt. on the various Epistles named.

7. The Pastoral Epistles. The present condition
of opinion on the problem of the Pastoral Epistles
presents three distinct views as to their dates : (1)
that they were composed by the Apostle after his
release from the Roman imprisonment (62), towards
the end of his fourth missionary journey (66 or 67) ;
(2) that they represent a much more advanced
stage of development in Christian thought and
organization, and therefore fall between the date
of St. Paul's death and the reign of Hadrian (A.D.
67-117), with the greater probability for 90-100 (cf.
Moffatt, LNT, pp. 395-420) ; (3) that they represent
short letters by St. Paul produced in his last year
and expanded by interpolation. The merits of
these views it is not possible to discuss in the com-
pass of this article (cf. J. V. Bartlet, Acts [The
Century Bible, 1901], Moffatt, loc. cit., and the artt.

8. Acts. All the discussion of the problem
created by the abrupt close of the Book of Acts
seems to lead to but one clear conclusion, viz. that
the author knew nothing more to tell about St.
Paul and the fortunes of the gospel, and that the
date of the composition of the oook coincides with
the end of the second year of the Apostle's im-
prisonment at Rome (62). This in general is the
simple process of reasoning that ruled opinion in
ancient times from the days of Eusebius onwards
(HE II. xxii. 6). In modern times its advocates
have been some of the ablest critics (Alford, Godet,
Salmon, Rendall, Bisping, Rackham, Blass, and
Harnack). On the other side, it is argued that,
as Acts is a sequel to the Third Gospel (rbv (itv
irp&rov \6yov), which, it is assumed, was written
after A.D. 70, the earliest date possible for Acts
must be some years posterior to this date. The
more precise determination of the period, however,
becomes a question of extremely debatable con-
siderations. Accordingly, a wide variety of dates
of composition is proposed, as by Zahn, Headlam,
Bartlet (72-74) ; by Bleek, Adeney, Gilbert (80) ;
by Julicher, Burkitt, Wrede (c. 100); by the
Tubingen critics ( 1 10-120), or even later. Harnack,
however, has shown reasons why the posteriority
of St. Luke to the year 70 cannot stand (The Date



of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels), and the tradi-
tional dating at A.D. 62 may be said to have re-
ceived a rehabilitation at his hands. See art.

9. The Synoptic Gospels. That the Synoptic
Gospels were composed upon the basis of pre-exist-
ing collections of 'Sayings of Jesus,' through a
process of development, may be assumed as one
of the fairly well-established results of modern
critical study. How long this process continued
is of secondary importance. The order in which
the Gospels evidently appeared is Mark, Luke,
Matthew. The earliest notices of the time of the
composition of Mark are not perfectly harmonious.
Irenreus (Hcer. iii. 1) testifies that Mark, 'the
disciple and interpreter of Peter,' published 'the
things preached by Peter' after the departure
(g&dov) of Paul and Peter ; but Clement of Alex-
andria, a contemporary, represents the Gospel of
Mark as written in the lifetime of Peter, and adds
that the Apostle ' neither forbade nor encouraged '
the work. This discrepancy is not of course a con-
tradiction. The 'departure,' to which Irenseus
makes the writing of Mark posterior, may be a
mere departure from Rome (though this is not
likely) ; or it may be that the statement of Clement
merely means that Peter knew of Mark's purpose
to write, though that purpose was not actually
carried out till after his death. The best view,
however, of the discord is that neither of the re-
presentations is primarily based on chronological
interest, and therefore neither can be used as a
precise datum in a chronological computation. So
far as the passage in Irenseus is concerned, Chap-
man has shown this to be true (JThSt, vi. [1905]
p. 563 ff.), and Harnack contends that it is also true
of the passage in Clement. Such an estimate of
these ' testimonies ' of the ancients leaves the time
of the origin of the Gospels indefinite, but is in
itself just. Upon the whole, therefore, it seems
not improbable that Mark and Luke at least were
composed before Acts and in the years of St. Paul's
imprisonment in Rome or even earlier. The case
is slightly different with Matthew, where signs of
a later time are more clearly visible (27 28 18 : ws
7-77 j ff-i)[j.epov, 'until to-day,' implying a considerable
interval from the days of Jesus) ; a date as. late as
70 or even later is quite admissible. See art. GOS-
PELS and artt. on separate Gospels in DOG.

10. Epistle to the Hebrews. The evidence as
to the date of this production is extremely faint and
uncertain. The external data are partly some free
citations from it in Clem. Rom. (xix. 2, xxi. 9 [cf.
He 12'J, xxxiv. 1 [cf. He 2 18 3 1 4 2 ' 5 1 s1 -]), and partly
a certain dependence of thought on St. Paul and
on 1 Peter. Internal data appealed to are such as
that the Temple service was still operative (7 8 8 3 ~ 5
96-9 1310) . that, considering the purpose of the
writing, if the Temple service had been rendered
impossible by such an event as the catastrophe of
70, the writer must have mentioned the fact ; the
non-occurrence of any severe persecution of Chris-
tians in the Hebrew world leading to martyrdom
(12 4 ), the possibility of which is, however, kept in
view. Other items are slighter and less conclusive.
The most decisive indications of time seem to be
the allusions in 10 33f - 12 4 - 6fi> , which show that the
writer was thinking of an attitude in his readers
of shrinking from suffering publicly, whether this
was imminent or actual, though not severe. In
Palestine this attitude of mind was to be met in
the years of the Jewish war. The latter portion of
the period, therefore, or the years 68 and 69, may
very well be taken as the most appropriate setting
for the writing. See, further, HEBREWS, EPISTLE

11. The Epistles of Peter and Jude. The date
of the death of St. Peter as already fixed necessi-

tates a date for 1 and 2 Peter prior to 67. For 2
Peter (q. v. ), in the present condition of the evidence,
this proves impossible, on both internal and ex-
ternal grounds. The conclusion is inevitable that
this writing (together with Jude [q.v.]) must be
detached from the Apostolic Age. For 1 Peter,
however, there is a very natural place in the
Apostle's sojourn in Rome. The mention of ' Baby-
lon' (5 13 ) has been from very early days (Euseb. HEu.
15) referred to Rome, in harmony with the literary
methods of the day. The conditions reflected in
the writing also correspond with those that pre-
vailed in the reign of Nero. Christians had been
obliged to leave the capital in large numbers and
create a new ' Dispersion. ' It was a time of tempta-
tion to fall away because of hardships, threatened
or actual, for bearing the name ' Christian.' Alto-
gether, the year 66 or even 65 may, therefore, well
have been the date of the writing of this Epistle.
See, further, art. PETER, EPISTLES OF.

12. The Johannine writings. Of the writings
of this group the Apocalypse offers the clearest
marks of its age. But even here, from the earliest
times, differing views have prevailed. Signs of an
earlier time than Domitian's reign may easily be
pointed out in the book. But they are quite as easily
accounted for as reminiscences or traditions incor-
porated into the work. The undeniable allusion
to the worship of the Emperor (II s - 12 ), however,
points to the reign of Dornitian, under whom for
the first time Emperor- worship assumed its serious
aspect to the Christians. This, with some minor
considerations, gives the predominance of weight
to the Domitianic dating of the Apocalypse. See,
further, art. APOCALYPSE.

The Fourth Gospel is related to the Apocalypse
not merely by the external and superficial identity
of the author's name but by the substantial agree-
ment of the two writings in view-point and doctrinal
system. Stylistic and linguistic characteristics,
however, separate them very widely, and the affili-
ation of the two is best explained on the ground
of origin within a Johannine 'school' or group.
But if the Apocalypse was written between 85 and
95, the Gospel cannot be dated much earlier than
the latter year, since such a Johannine group must
have taken some time to develop its characteristic
point of view and conceptions. On the other hand,
the likelihood that Ignatius, Justin, and Papias
were familiar with the Gospel fixes the latest date
for the latter as 110. It must be dated, then, some
time between 95 and 110, with the probability
strongly in favour of a year prior to 100.

Of the Johannine Epistles (see JOHN, EPISTLES
OF) the First must be connected in time as well as
authorship with the Fourth Gospel. Whether it
preceded the larger writing or followed it is of
small importance. Its general period remains the
same. The two minor Epistles by the Presbyter
issue from the same group, and probably belong
to the same general period.


. 44 (80-100)

James .

1 and 2 Thessaloni
ans . . . 53

Galatians . . 54 (50-53)

1 and 2 Corinthi-
ans .


Imprisonment Ep-
istles (Col.,
Eph., Philem.,
PhiL) . . 69-61

. 56-57
. 58

Synoptic Gospels

(Mk. [60], Lk.

[61], Mt. [68]) . 60-68
Acts . . . .62
Pastoral Epistles (1

and 2 Tim., Tit.) . 66
1 Pet. . . .66
Hebrews . . .69
Apocalypse . . 81-96
Epistles of John . 98 (?)
Fourth Gospel . . 96-100 (?)

LITERATURES. The primary sources of information outside the
apostolic records and Epistles are the works of Josephus(4n<.
and BJ) ; the Annals of Tacitus ; Suetonius, The Lines of the
Twelve Caesars ; and the works of Eusebius (HEa.nd Chronicpn,
together with Jerome's VS). The modern study of the subject
has issued in a vast number of discussions. Some of these are
incorporated in works of larger scope, such as E. Schiirer,




GJV'J i. [1901], ii. iii. [1S98] (HJP, Eng. tr., 1885-1890) ; W. M.
Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895 ;
A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Lit.,ii. [1897]; C. H.
Turner, art. ' Chronol. of NT ' in HDB i. [1898] 403 ; T. Zahn,
Jntrod. to the JVr(Eng. tr., 1909), Appendix ; J. Moffatt, LA'T,
1911. Of separate treatments of the Apostolic Age, mention
must be made of R. Anger, de Temponim in Actis Apost.
Ratione, 1833 ; T. Lewin, fasti Sacn, 1865 ; G. Hoennicke,
Chronol. des Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903 ; F. Westberg,
Bibl. Chronol., 1910. ANDREW C. ZEN OS.


DAYID (Aavetf, but TR AaW). David, the
most popular of the heroes and the most illustrious
of the kings of Israel, is often alluded to in the
NT. He is 'David the son of Jesse' (Ac 13 22 ), a
name reminiscent of his lowly origin ; and he is
the patriarch David ' (2 28 ), ' our father David '
(4 s8 ), one of that company of venerable progenitors
who may be supposed to have bequeathed some-
thing of their spirit to all their descendants. He
is habitually thought of as the ideal of manhood,
the man (a.vf)p) after God's heart, doing all His will
(13 1>2 ) ; and as the devout worshipper who desired
to find a habitation for the God of Jacob (7 46 ).
All Israelites loved to think of his 'days' (7 45 ) as
the golden age of Hebrew history, and or ' the holy
and sure blessings' shown to him (13 34 ), or Divine
promises made to his family, as pledges of ever-
lasting favour to his nation. He is of course in-
cluded in the roll of the OT heroes of faith (He II 32 ).

These were matters of ancient history, but the
relation of David to the Messiah seemed a point
of vital importance to every Jew and Jewish Chris-
tian, as well as of deep interest to all educated

Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 91 of 234)