HARNACK ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
[To TILE EDITOR OF TILE "SPECTATOR."] SIR.—When Harnack says, " In the whole New Testament there is probably only one solitary writing which can be called in the strictest sense of the word pseudonymous, the Second Epistle of Peter" (see Spectator of March 24th), what he means is that there is, in his view, no other writing in it which was from the first, and is from beginning to end, a Ihre-cierivpatage (to use the technical term), or (as Dr. Westcott would express it) "a forgery." But for all that, Harnack by no means "concedes that all the New Testament writings are correctly attributed to the authors whose names they bear" (ib.) Harnack holds, indeed, the bulk of the Pauline Epistles—i. ea ten of them, I think—to be genuine. Of the Pastoral Epistles, however, he says (" Altchristliche Littem- tur," IL i. 480) "that the Pastoral Epistles, in their present form, are not written by the Apostle Paul, but are built or based (aufgebaut) upon Pauline letters, is a result of criticism which does not need to be proved anew." Much of 2 Tim. he would accept as genuine, but of 1 Tim. scarcely a single verse. As to the "catholic Epistles" (excepting 2 St. Peter and those bearing the name of John), he holds them to have been originally anonymous or the work of unknown or for- gotten authors, and to have been by some subsequent editor or editors in all good faith labelled (etigtsettirt) with their present tides, and so Umgesempe1t as the handiwork of Peter, James, or Jade (see pp. 489, 468, 455). This novel opinion may be seen discussed in Professor Sanday's " Inspiration " (p. 379). Harnack's discussion of the Johannean writings, especially of the Fourth Gospel, is very full (pp. 653-680). He holds (a) that the Gospel, Apoca- lypse, and Epistles are from the same pen; (b) that they do not claim to be by the son of Zebedee, the " beloved Disciple,"—John xix. 35 alone (he thinks) disproves that, while John xxi. 24 he regards as a clumsy and self-contradictory editorial note; how (he asks) can the " beloved Disciple," whose death is implied in John xxi. 21-23, bed eaDra vaitPa;? (c) that they do not claim to be by an eye-witness, the language of John i. 14 and 1 John i. 1 being that of a mystic ; (d) that the true author is John the elder, a Disciple of the Lord "im weiteren Sinne " (p. 660), one of a group of persons who, "born in Palestine, were aged Christians about 90-100 A.D., and had perhaps seen the Lord as children, or had come into such slight contact with him as had Irenteus with Poly- carp, or slighter still" (p. 677); (e) that the author stands in a special relation to the son of Zebedee, and seeks to give expres- sion to this (ib.) Harnack accepts the traditional account of St. Mark's GospeL Of St. Matthew's, his most positive assertion is on p. 693, "The possibility that the Apostle Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel, which is still recognis- able in the common source of Matthew and Luke, must be left open, but the assumption is not secure." As to the Lucan writings, Harnack expresses no opinion as to their authorship. On the other hand, Harnack assigns several of these writings to relatively early dates :—St. Matthew's Gospel to 70-75 A.D.; St. Luke's and the Acts to 78-93 A.D.; the Fourth Gospel to a date not later that 110 A,D. (see pp.
653, 250, 674).—I am, Sir, &c., W. A. C.
Previous page
