Month: October 2010

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Genuineness.--The ancient Church never doubted of their being canonical and written by Paul. They are in the Peschito Syriac version of the second century. Muratori's Fragment on the Canon of Scripture, at the close of the second century, acknowledges them

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Place of Writing.--Paul, in the interval between his first and second imprisonment, after having written First Timothy from Macedonia or Corinth [Birks] (if we are to adopt the opinion that First Timothy was written after his first imprisonment), returned to Ephesus, as

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Genuineness.--Clement of Rome quotes it [Epistle to the Corinthians, 2]; Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3.3.4] refers to it as Paul's; Theophilus of Antioch [To Autolychus, 3.14], quotes it as Scripture. Compare Clement of Alexandria [Miscellanies, 1, p. 299]; Tertullian [The Prescription against Heretics, 6]. Time and Place

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION The testimonies to its authenticity are--Origen [Homily 19, on Jeremiah, vol. 1., p. 185, Edition Huetius], cites it as the letter of Paul to Philemon concerning Onesimus; Tertullian [Against Marcion, 5.21]: "The brevity of this Epistle is the sole cause of its escaping the falsifying

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Canonicity and authorship.--Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION This is called by Eusebius ([Ecclesiastical History, 2.23], about the year 330 A.D.) the first of the Catholic Epistles, that is, the Epistles intended for general circulation, as distinguished from Paul's Epistles, which were addressed to particular churches or individuals. In the oldest manuscripts of the

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Its genuineness is attested by 2Pe 3:1. On the authority of Second Peter, see the Introduction. Also by Polycarp (in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.14]), who, in writing to the Philippians, quotes many passages: in the second chapter he quotes 1Pe 1:13, 21; 3:9; in the

THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Authenticity and genuineness.--If not a gross imposture, its own internal witness is unequivocal in its favor. It has Peter's name and apostleship in its heading: not only his surname, but his original name Simon, or Simeon, he thus, at the close of his life, reminding

THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Authorship.--Polycarp, the disciple of John [Epistle to the Philippians, 7], quotes 1Jo 4:3. Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39] says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, "He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John." Irenæus, according to Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 5.8],

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES GENERAL OF JOHN Commentary by A. R. Faussett   INTRODUCTION Authenticity.--That these two Epistles were written by the same author appears from their similarity of tone, style, and sentiments. That John, the beloved disciple, was the author of the Second and Third Epistles, as of the First Epistle, appears from Irenæus [Against Heresies,