after 62 A.D., and probably not till several years after. For if it was written in Babylon on the Euphrates (see 1 Pet. 5:13), time must be allowed for the Ephesian letter to be carried so far east. And if Babylon is an allegorical name for Rome, we reach the same conclusion by another path; since in view of the silence of Paul's letters written from Rome, it is on the whole probable that Peter did not come to Rome till after Paul's death. On the other hand, it is commonly supposed, though upon the basis of an inconclusive tradition, that Peter died at Rome under Nero. If these probabilities were certainties, they would reduce the period in which the letter must have been written to somewhat narrow limits, placing it not earlier than about 65, and not later than 68. There remains open, however, the possibility, on the one side, that Ephesians may be earlier than 62, and, on the other, that Peter may have survived Nero.

The problem respecting Jude and Second Peter is complicated by their manifest resemblance to one another, implying that one is dependent on the other, and by the uncertainty which has always been felt concerning the genuineness of Second Peter. If Second Peter is genuine, it must of course fall between First Peter and the death of the apostle, or, according to the view of the date of First Peter suggested above, and the common view of the date of Peter's death, not earlier than about 65 or 66 and not later than 68. If, as seems probable, Second Peter is dependent on Jude rather than the reverse, Jude must precede Second Peter, yet by no long time, since both seem addressed to nearly the same situation. But it is evident that probability and conjecture enter so largely into this argument that we have at most no more than a working hypothesis, to be verified or corrected by decisive evidence, if such is at any time discovered. If Second Peter is not genuine, or if Jude is dependent on Second Peter, or if Peter survived Nero by some years, considerable change might be made in the dates assigned above. It is quite possible that all of these letters were written after the fall of Jerusalem rather than before.

Literature: WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, §§38, 40, 41, accepts First Peter and Jude as genuine, and places First Peter in 50 a.D. The genuineness of Second Peter he regards as an open question. HUTHER. in Meyer's Commentary, Introductions to the several epistles, accepts First Peter (assigning it to the year 66 or 67) and Jude, but doubts Second Pet .. FARRAR, Early Days of Christianity, Book II., chaps. vii., ix., xi., dates First Peter in 67. WEIZSÄCKER, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, 2d ed., p. 475, rejects all three, assigning First Peter to the reign of Trajan; see also HOLTZMANN, Einleitung, pp. 320, 325, 329. JÜLICHER, Einleitung, p. 135, places it about 100 A.D. GLOAG, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, treats the questions connected with these epistles very fully. He regards all as genuine. RAMSAY, Church in the Roman Empire, chap. xiii., rejecting the common view that Peter died under Nero, regards First Peter as a genuine writing of the apostle, written about 75-80 A.D.

The evidence that the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs to this period, though not decisive, is more tangible than in the case of the letters discussed above. It is evidently addressed to Jewish Christians who, in accepting Christ, had not abandoned Judaism, but who, for some reason, are now in danger of forsaking Christ, and of either returning to Judaism or of drifting away into unbelief and irreligion (chap. 3; 4:14; 6:4-8; 10: 23; note especially 3: 12). The writer assumes that the old dispensation was of divine authority for its own time, but maintains that it was imperfect and temporary, and must give place to the perfect and permanent, which has come in Jesus Christ. Such an argument is well adapted to save from apostasy those to whose faith the downfall of the Jewish state and temple would be a great shock, because they had not learned to separate between the Judaism of the temple and the Christianity of Christ. That it was in fact written when this event was seen to be impending is rendered probable by the manner in which the temple and its worship are spoken of. On the one hand, though much is said of the worship and sacrifices of the temple, there is an entire absence of any intimation that these have ceased; but this could scarcely have been the case if the temple had already fallen. This event, if already past, would inevitably, it would seem, have affected the form of the argument, making it quite different from what we in fact find it to be. On the other hand, it seems highly improbable that the attempt would have been made to persuade Jewish Christians that the temple and its worship had ceased to have any significance for them, until the downfall of Jerusalem was seen to be impending. Even Paul was content, less than a decade before the outbreak of the Jewish war, while strenuously opposing the imposition of Jewish ordinances upon the Gentiles, to advise Jewish Christians to remain Jews (1 Cor. 7: 18-24). It is improbable that any one else would have been more forward than he in this direction, until the change in the situation compelled the assumption of a new position, in order to avert a new danger.

The date thus suggested, about 66 A.D., is somewhat confirmed on the one side by the use of the present tense in speaking of the temple worship (Heb. 8:4; 9:6-10; 10: 1, 11; 13: 10), and, on the other, by language which suggests an approaching crisis (10: 25). Yet these weigh but little; the nature of the argument, and its appropriateness to this situation, together with the absence of any clear indication of a later date, must constitute the chief evidence, and these point to a time near the outbreak of the Jewish war as the most probable date of the book.

Literature: WESTCOTT, Introduction to his Commentary on the Epistle, and article on Hebrews in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 2d Eng. ed.; WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, §32; SALMON, Introduction to the New Testament, Lecture XXI.; FARRAR, Early Days of Christianity, Book III., chap. xvii., advocate an early date, between 60 and 70, most of them between 66 and 70; A. B. DAVIDSON, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Introduction,

p. 15, regards the argument for the early date as inconclusive; JÜLICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 104–106, thinks the reign of Domitian, about 85 A.D., a more probable date than one before 70 A.D.

The problem of the date of the book of Revelation is one of great difficulty. Ancient tradition, though not quite unanimously, assigns it to the reign of Domitian (81-96), and there are some portions of the book, especially the epistles to the seven churches, that might well have been written toward the end of the first century. Yet other parts of the book seem to bear clear testimony to an earlier date. Thus chap. II: I, 2 seems to imply that the temple was still standing. In 17: 10 reference is made to seven kings, of whom "the five are fallen, the one is, and the other is not yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a little while." This passage is most naturally understood to refer to the emperors of Rome, of whom, reckoned from Augustus as the first, Nero was the fifth. The beast that was and is not and is about to come out of the abyss, and to go into perdition, is said to be one of the seven, and himself also an eighth. This enigmatical language seems to find its most probable explanation in the assumption that by a change of figure the emperor previously referred to as the head of the beast is here identified with the beast, and that the enigma is based upon the report, current soon after Nero's death, that he would return. This report the apocalyptist employs to convey to his readers symbolically the key to his prediction, though not necessarily accepting it himself in a literal sense. If this identification is correct, the date of the book is quite definitely fixed, being placed in the reign of Nero's successor, yet before the destruction of Jerusalem; hence between June, 68, and August, 70, A.D. It may still be a question whether the writer refers to Galba, who reigned from June, 68, to January, 69, as Nero's successor, or ignores the three short reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, whose combined reigns lasted but about eighteen months, and counts Vespasian (69-79) as the sixth. Titus (79-81) would, in that case, be the seventh, and Domitian (81-96) the eighth, the Nero redivivus. In the former case the date indicated would be 68, in the latter 69 or 70 A.D.

Some writers have taken the variant indications of time as an argument to prove either that the book is made up of visions composed at different times, or that it is of composite authorship. To this latter view at least is to be opposed the evidence of unity, regarded by most students as being, precisely in the case of this book, singularly strong. If, in view of the absence of decisive evidence, either that any portions are of late date, or that the book is of composite authorship, we date the book by the clearest evidence, we shall assign it to the period between the death of Nero in June, 68, and the downfall of the temple in the latter part of the summer of 70 A.D. Pending further investigation and the presentation of more definite evidence, this date may be provisionally accepted.

Literature: WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, §35; FARRAR,

Early Days of Christianity (an extended discussion), see especially Book V., chaps. xxvii., xxviii., §§5, 6; SIMCOX, Cambridge Greek Testament, volume on Revelation, Introduction.

Concerning the partition theories, see VÖLTER, Die Entstehung der Apokalypse, 2d ed.; VISCHER, Die Offenbarung Johannis als eine jüdische Apokalypse in christlicher Bearbeitung, in Gebhardt und Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, II., 3; WEIZSÄCKER, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, pp. 486-503; JULICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 178-183; MILLIGAN, The Revelation of St. John, Appendices III. and IV., defends the unity of the book, and assigns it to the reign of Domitian; also SALMON, Introduction to the New Testament, 7th ed., Lecture XIV. In his first edition Salmon favored the earlier date.

There is much reason to believe that the Gospel of Mark was written not far from this period (66–70 A.D.), and that the Gospel of Matthew also was published either just before the destruction of Jerusalem, or not long after that event. The discussion of the evidence does not, however, fall within the scope of these notes.

NOTE 15.

THE LITERATURE OF THE YEARS 70-100 A.D. §§77-79.

The closing period of the Apostolic Age, from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans till the death of the apostle John, is a period of great obscurity in the history of the church, and of scanty literature, if we may judge from that which has come down to us.

The only books of the New Testament that can with confidence be referred to this period proceed from two authors. The two narrative works of Luke, the Gospel and the Acts, were probably written in the first part of this period. The Gospel of John and his three short epistles probably belong to the latter portion of it. But the evidence for the exact determination of the dates of these several books is wholly lacking.

To this period also belongs the earliest Christian literature not included in the New Testament canon. The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians is generally acknowledged to have been written about 96–98 a.d. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles are also held by some to have been written before 100 A.D. This is the period, therefore, of transition from the literature which in due time became Canonical to that which is commonly known as Patristic.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

IN THE RECORDS AND LETTERS.

Indented references refer to the narrative passages taken from the speeches and letters and inserted, either in the body of the section or at the bottom of the page, at the point corresponding to the time of the events which they relate. References in brackets indicate passages bracketed in the text. Page figures indicate the page on which the given passage begins.