34 . E£V. CANON R. J. KNOWLING^ D.D., ON 



Such a remark reminds us that Dr. Harnack is disposed to . 

 accept Uphesians as from St. Paul, because tlie acceptance of 

 Colossians would seem to carry the acceptance of Uphesians with 

 it. One of the most valuable defences of Ephesians comes to us 

 from a member of the little band of Eomanist writers known 

 more or less to us in England, the veteran Dr. Johannes 

 Belser, to whose name we may add that of the Frenchman 

 Jacquier. 



But much more unexpected is the candid statement of 

 Professor Gardner in his recent well-known book The Religious 

 Experiences of St. Paul, pp. 14-15. If it could be shown, he 

 admits, that the whole of the third group of St. Paul's Epistles 

 were non-Pauline, this would in some degree affect the basis of 

 his structure. Por it is precisely those parts of the Apostle's 

 teaching which are most clearly set forth in Colossians and 

 Ephesians, on which Professor Gardner lays special stress. But 

 it seems impossible, he adds, that any disciple should use so 

 exactly the thought, the manner, and even the language of the 

 great Apostle, while yet there is no trace of such a man in 

 history. The author of Hebrews, though Pauline in tendency, 

 shows quite a distinct personality of his own. And we feel, as 

 Professor Gardner concludes, that so great a writer as the 

 composer of Colossians and Ephesians must have been could not 

 have concealed his individuality completely behind that of his 

 master. 



The question of the authenticity of il Thessalonians has 

 recently been revived by a remarkable suggestion made by 

 Dr. Harnack in a paper read before the Berlin Academy. He 

 argues that whilst the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was 

 directed to the Gentile element of the Christian Church in 

 Thessalonica, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was 

 addressed to a smaller and earlier Jewish community. There is 

 certainly remarkable language which might be quoted to 

 support this contention, and it may be regarded as a working 

 hypothesis, to which, as some of us will note, Professor 

 Lake has given special attention. But anyhow it would be easy 

 to quote many great names in support of ii Thessalonians, 

 as also of the much disputed Pastoral Epistles. 



Special attention might be drawn in this connection to the 

 defence recently made by Sir W. Eamsay of these Pastoral 

 Epistles, and to the acceptance in Germany of ii Thessalonians 

 by writers so far removed from each other in many respects as 

 Dr. Zahn, Dr. Clemen, and Dr. Deissmann. ISTor should it be 

 forgotten that Dr. Harnack does not refuse ii Thessalonians to 



