CHAPTER V. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE FIRST CHRISTIAN WRITERS, AND BY THE FATHERS TILL THE TIME OF ORIGEN.
The writings of the New Testament show the authors" acquaintance with the apocryphal books. They have expressions and ideas derived from them. Stier collected one hundred and two pa.s.sages which bear some resemblance to others in the Apocrypha;(90) but they needed sifting, and were cut down to a much smaller number by Bleek. They are James i. 19, from Sirach v. 11 and iv. 29; 1 Peter i. 6, 7, from Wisdom iii. 3-7; Hebrews xi. 34, 35, from 2 Maccabees vi. 18-vii. 42; Hebrews i. 3, from Wisdom vii. 26, &c.; Romans i. 20-32, from Wisdom xiii.-xv.; Romans ix. 21, from Wisdom xv. 7; Eph. vi. 13-17, from Wisdom v. 18-20; 1 Cor. ii. 10, &c., from Judith viii. 14. Others are less probable.(91) When Bishop Cosin says, that "in all the New Testament we find not any one pa.s.sage of the apocryphal books to have been alleged either by Christ or His apostles for the confirmation of their doctrine,"(92) the argument, though based on fact, is scarcely conclusive; else Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and other works might be equally discredited. Yet it is probable that the New Testament writers, though quoting the Septuagint much more than the original, were disinclined to the additional parts of the Alexandrian canon. They were Palestinian themselves, or had in view Judaisers of a narrow creed.
Prudential motives, no less than a predisposition in favor of the old national canon, may have hindered them from expressly citing any apocryphal production. The apostle Paul and probably the other writers of the New Testament, believed in the literal inspiration of the Biblical books, for he uses an argument in the Galatian epistle which turns upon the singular or plural of a noun.(93) And as the inspiration of the Septuagint translation was commonly held by the Christians of the early centuries, it may be that the apostles and evangelists made no distinction between its parts. Jude quotes Enoch, an apocryphal work not in the Alexandrian canon; so that he at least had no rigid notions about the difference of canonical and uncanonical writings. Still we know that the compa.s.s of the Old Testament canon was somewhat unsettled to the Christians of the first century, as it was to the h.e.l.lenist Jews themselves. It is true that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were universally recognized as authoritative; but the extent of the third division was indefinite, so that the non-citation of the three books respecting which there was a difference of opinion among the Jews may not have been accidental. Inasmuch, however, as the Greek-speaking Jews received more books than their Palestinian brethren, the apostles and their immediate successors were not wholly disinclined to the use of the apocryphal productions. The undefined boundary of the canon facilitated also the recognition of all primitive records of the new Revelation.
The early fathers, who wrote in Greek, used the Greek Bible, as almost all of them were ignorant of Hebrew. Thus restricted; they naturally considered its parts alike, citing apocryphal and canonical in the same way. Accordingly, Irenaeus(94) quotes Baruch under the name of "Jeremiah the prophet;"(95) and the additions to Daniel as "Daniel the prophet."(96) Clement of Alexandria(97) uses the apocryphal books like the canonical ones, for explanation and proof indiscriminately. He is fond of referring to Baruch, which he cites upwards of twenty-four times in the second book of his _Paedagogus_, and in a manner to show that he esteemed it as highly as many other parts of the Old Testament. A pa.s.sage from Baruch is introduced by the phrase,(98) "the divine Scripture says;" and another from Tobit by(99) "Scripture has briefly signified this, saying." a.s.suming that Wisdom was written by Solomon, he uses it as canonical and inspired, designating it _divine_.(100) Judith he cites with other books of the Old Testament(101); and the Song of the three children in the furnace is used as Scripture.(102) Ecclesiasticus also is so treated.(103) Dionysius of Alexandria(104) cites Ecclesiasticus (xvi. 26), introducing the pa.s.sage with "hear divine oracles."(105) The same book is elsewhere cited, chapters xliii. 29, 30(106) and i. 8. 9.(107) So is Wisdom, vii. 15(108) and 25.(109) Baruch (iii. 12-15) is also quoted.(110) The fathers who wrote in Latin used some of the old Latin versions of which Augustine speaks; one of them, and that the oldest probably dating soon after the middle of the second century, being known to us as the _Itala_. As this was made from the Septuagint, it had the usual apocryphal books. Jerome"s critical revision or new version did not supplant the old Latin till some time after his death. Tertullian(111) quotes the Wisdom of Solomon expressly as Solomon"s;(112) and introduces Sirach by "as it is written."(113) He cites Baruch as Jeremiah.(114) He also believes in the authenticity of the book of Enoch, and defends it as _Scripture_ at some length.(115) Cyprian often cites the Greek additions to the Palestinian canon. He introduces Tobit with the words "as it is written,"(116) or "divine Scripture teaches, saying;"(117) and Wisdom with, "the Holy Spirit shows by Solomon."(118) Ecclesiasticus is introduced with, "it is written;"(119) and Baruch with, "the Holy Spirit teaches by Jeremiah."(120) 1 and 2 Maccabees are used as Scripture;(121) as are the additions to Daniel.(122) The African fathers follow the Alexandrian canon without scruple. Hippolytus of Rome (about A.D. 220), who wrote in Greek, quotes Baruch as Scripture;(123) and interprets the additions to Daniel, such as Susanna, as Scripture likewise.(124)
Melito of Sardis(125) made it his special business to inquire among the Palestinian Jews about the number and names of their canonical books; and the result was the following list:-the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.(126) Here Ezra includes Nehemiah; and Esther is absent, because the Jews whom he consulted did not consider it canonical.
Origen"s(127) list does not differ much from the Palestinian one. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings first and second, Samuel, Chronicles, come Ezra first and second, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations and the epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther. Besides these there are the Maccabees, which are inscribed _Sarbeth Sarbane el_.(128) The twelve prophets are omitted in the Greek; but the mistake is rectified in Rufinus"s Latin version, where they follow Canticles, as in Hilary and Cyril of Jerusalem. It is remarkable that Baruch is given, and why? Because Origen took it from the MSS. of the Septuagint he had before him, in which the epistle is attributed to Jeremiah. But the catalogue had no influence upon his practice. He followed the prevailing view of the extended canon. Sirach is introduced by "for this also _is written_";(129) the book of Wisdom is cited as a _divine word_;(130) the writer is called a _prophet_;(131) _Christ_ is represented as speaking in it _through Solomon_;(132) and Wisdom vii. 17 is adduced as _the word of Christ himself_.(133) Tobit is cited as _Scripture_.(134) His view of the additions to the books of Daniel and Esther, as well as his opinion about Tobit, are sufficiently expressed in the epistle to Africa.n.u.s, so that scattered quotations from these parts of Scripture can be properly estimated. Of the history of Susanna he ventures to say that the Jews withdrew it on purpose from the people.(135) He seems to argue in favor of books used and read in the churches, though they may be put out of the canon by the Jews. As divine Providence had preserved the sacred Scriptures, no alteration should be made in the ecclesiastical tradition respecting books sanctioned by the churches though they be external to the Hebrew canon.
Most of the writings of Methodius, Bishop of Tyre(136) are lost, so that we know little of his opinions respecting the books of Scripture. But it is certain that he employed the Apocrypha like the other writings of the Old Testament. Thus Sirach (xviii. 30 and xix. 2) is quoted in the same way as the Proverbs.(137) Wisdom (iv. 1-3) is cited,(138) and Baruch (iii.
14).(139)
CHAPTER VI. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.
The first Christians relied on the Old Testament as their chief religious book. To them it was of divine origin and authority. The New Testament writings came into gradual use, by the side of the older Jewish doc.u.ments, according to the times in which they appeared and the names of their reputed authors. The Epistles of Paul were the earliest written; after which came the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and other doc.u.ments, all in the first century. After the first gospel had undergone a process of translation, re-writing, and interpolation, from the Aramaic basis, _the discourses_,(140) of which Papias of Hierapolis speaks, until the traces of another original than the Greek were all but effaced; it appeared in its present form early in the second century. Soon after, that of Luke was composed, whose prevailing Pauline tendency was not allowed to suppress various features of a Jewish Essene type. The second gospel, which bears evidences of its derivation from the other synoptists, was followed by the fourth. The last doc.u.ment was the so-called second Epistle of Peter. It is manifest that tradition a.s.sumed various forms after the death of Jesus; that legend and myth speedily surrounded His sacred person; that the unknown writers were influenced by the peculiar circ.u.mstances in which they stood with respect to Jewish and Gentile Christianity; and that their uncritical age dealt considerably in the marvelous. That the life of the great Founder should be overlaid with extraneous materials, is special matter for regret. However conscientious and truth-loving they may have been, the reporters were unequal to their work. It is also remarkable that so many of them should be unknown; productions being attached to names of repute to give them greater currency.
When Marcion came from Pontus to Rome (144 A.D.,) he brought with him a Scripture-collection consisting of ten Pauline epistles. With true critical instinct he did not include those addressed to Timothy and t.i.tus, as also the epistle to the Hebrews. The gospel of Marcion was Luke"s in an altered state. From this and other facts we conclude that external parties were the first who carried out the idea of collecting Christian writings, and of putting them either beside or over against the sacred books of the Old Testament, in support of their systems. As to Basilides (125 A.D.), his supposed quotations from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too precarious to be trusted.(141) Testimonies to the "acknowledged" books of the New Testament as Scripture have been transferred from his followers to himself; so that his early witness to the canon breaks down. It is inferred from statements in Origen and Jerome that he had a gospel of his own somewhat like St. Luke"s, but extra-canonical. His son Isidore and succeeding disciples used Matthew"s gospel. Jerome says that Marcion and Basilides denied the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews and the pastoral ones.(142) It is also doubtful whether Valentinus"s (140-166 A.D.) alleged citations from the New Testament can be relied upon. The pa.s.sages of this kind ascribed to him by the fathers belong in a great measure to his disciples. The fragment of a letter preserved by Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromata, has been thought to contain references to the gospels of Matthew and Luke; but the fact is doubtful.
Nor has Henrici proved that Valentinus used John"s gospel.(143) But his followers, including Ptolemy (180 A.D.) and Heracleon (185-200 A.D.), quote the Gospels and other portions of the New Testament.(144) From Hippolytus"s account of the Ophites, Peratae, and Sethians, we infer that the Christian writings were much employed by them. They rarely cite an apocryphal work. More than one hundred and sixty citations from the New Testament have been gathered out of their writings.(145) We may admit that these Ophites and Peratae were of early origin, the former being the oldest known of the Gnostic parties; but there is no proof that the acquaintance with the New Testament which Hippolytus attributes to them belongs to the first rather than the second half of the second century. The early existence of the sect does not show an early citation of the Christian books by it, especially of John"s gospel; unless its primary were its last stage. Later and earlier Ophites are not distinguished in the _Philosophumena_. Hence there is a presumption that the author had the former in view, which is favored by no mention of them occurring in the "Adversus omnes Haereses" usually appended to Tertullian"s _Praescriptiones Haereticorum_, and by Irenaeus"s derivation of their heresy from that of Valentinus. The latter father does not even speak of the Peratae. Clement of Alexandria is the first who alludes to them. The early heretics were desirous of confirming their peculiar opinions by the writings current among Catholic Christians, so that the formation of a canon by them began soon after the commencement of the second century, and continued till the end of it; contemporaneously with the development of a Catholic Church and its necessary adjunct a Catholic canon.
No New Testament canon, except a partial and unauthoritative one, existed till the latter half of the second century, that is, till the idea of a Catholic church began to be entertained. The living power of Christianity in its early stages had no need of books for its nurture. But in the development of a church organization the internal rule of consciousness was changed into an external one of faith. The Ebionites or Jewish Christians had their favorite Gospels and Acts. The gospel of Matthew was highly prized by them, existing as it did in various recensions, of which the gospel according to the Hebrews was one. Other doc.u.ments, such as the Revelation of John; and the preaching of Peter, a Jewish-Christian history subsequently re-written and employed in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, were also in esteem. Even so late as 175-180 A.D., Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, does not seem to have had a canon consisting of the four gospels and Paul"s Epistles, but appeals to "the law and the prophets and _the Lord_," so that his leading principle was, the ident.i.ty of Jesus"s words with the Old Testament; agreeably to the tenets of the party he belonged to. The source whence he drew the words of Jesus was probably the Gospel according to the Hebrews, a doc.u.ment which we know he used, on the authority of Eusebius. He does not refer to Paul except by implication in a pa.s.sage given in Photius from Stephen Gobar,(146) where he says that such as used the words "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," &c., falsified the Divine Scriptures and the Lord"s words, "Blessed are your eyes for they see," &c. As Paul quoted the condemned language, he is blamed.(147) Though he knew Paul"s epistles, he does not look upon them as _authoritative_. He betrays no acquaintance with the fourth gospel; for the question, "What is the door to Jesus?" does not presuppose the knowledge of John x. 2, 7, 9. Nosgen has failed to prove Hegesippus"s Jewish descent; and Holtzmann"s mediating view of him is incorrect.(148)
The Clementine Homilies (161-180 A.D.) used the four canonical gospels even the fourth (which is somewhat singular in a writer who denies the deity of Christ), and a.s.signed it to the apostle John. The gospel according to the Egyptians was also employed. Paul"s epistles were rejected of course, as well as the Acts; since the apostle of the Gentiles was pointed at in Simon Magus, whom Peter refutes. It is, therefore, obvious that a collection of the New Testament writings could make little progress among the Ebionites of the second century. Their reverence for the law and the prophets hindered another canon. Among the Gentile Christians the formation of a canon took place more rapidly, though Judaic influences r.e.t.a.r.ded it even there. After Paul"s epistles were interchanged between churches, a few of them would soon be put together. A collection of this kind is implied in 2 Peter iii. 16. The pastoral epistles, which show their dependence on the authentic Pauline ones, with those of Peter, presuppose a similar collection; which along with the Synoptists, existed before the fourth gospel. The Apocalypse and the epistle to the Hebrews were obnoxious to the Pauline churches, as Paul"s letters were to the Jewish-Christian ones. Hence the former were outside the Pauline collections.
The apostolic fathers quote from the Old Testament, which was sacred and inspired to them. They have scarcely any express citations from the New Testament. _Allusions_ occur, especially to the epistles.
The first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (about 120 A.D.), implies acquaintance with several of the epistles, with those to the Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews, and perhaps others. Two pa.s.sages have also been adduced as derived from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, viz., in chapters xiii. 2 and xlvi. 8; but probably some other source supplied them, such as oral tradition. It has also been argued that the quotation in the fifteenth chapter, "The Scripture says somewhere, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," comes from Mark vii. 6 in which it varies from the Hebrew of Isaiah xxix. 13, as well as the Septuagint version. Clement therefore, so it is said, quotes the Old Testament through the medium of the gospels (Matthew xv. 8, Mark vii. 6). But the argument is inconclusive because the words agree closely enough with the Septuagint to render the supposition very probable that they are a memorized citation from it. As they stand, they coincide exactly neither with Mark nor the Septuagint.(149) Thus we dissent from the opinion of Gebhardt and Harnack. Wherever "Scripture" is cited, or the expression "it is written" occurs, the Old Testament is meant.
Hermas (about 140 A.D.) seems to have used the epistle to the Ephesians and perhaps that to the Hebrews, as well as the epistle of James; but there is great uncertainty about the matter, for there is no _express_ or certain quotation from any part of the New Testament. The writer often alludes to words of Jesus, found in Matthew"s gospel, so that he may have been acquainted with it. Keim(150) and others have discovered references to the fourth gospel; but they are invalid. There is no allusion to the Acts in vis. iv. 2, 4. The only _Scripture_ cited is the apocryphal book _Eldat and Modat_, now lost.(151) The writer seems to have known several Jewish Apocalypses.(152)
Barnabas (about 119 A.D.) has but one quotation from the New Testament, if, indeed, it be such. Apparently, Matthew xx. 16 or xxii. 14 is introduced by "as it is written," showing that the gospel was considered _Scripture_.(153) This is the earliest trace of canonical authority being transferred from the Old Testament to Christian writings. But the citation is not certain. The original may be 4 Esdras, viii. 3; and even if the writer took the words from Matthew"s gospel, it is possible that he used "it is written" with reference to their prototype in the Old Testament. Of such interchanges, examples occur in writers of the second century; and it is the more probable that this is one, from the fact that 4 Esdras is elsewhere considered a prophet and referred to in the same way as Ezekiel.(154) Barnabas"s citation of a gospel as canonical is wholly improbable, since even Justin, thirty years after, never quotes the New Testament writings as _Scripture_. The thing would be anomalous and opposed to the history of the first half of the second century. When these post-apostolic productions appeared, the New Testament writings did not stand on the same level with the Old, and were not yet esteemed _sacred_ and _inspired_ like the Jewish Scriptures. The Holy Spirit was thought to dwell in all Christians, without being confined to a few writers; and his influence was the common heritage of believers. There are evidences of Barnabas"s acquaintance with the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians; nor is it improbable that he knew the canonical gospel of Matthew, though one pa.s.sage _appears_ to contradict Matthew xxviii. 10, &c., without necessarily implying ignorance of what lies in it, viz., that the ascension of Jesus took place on the day of his resurrection.(155) Strangely enough, Keim thinks that the writer had John"s gospel before him; but this opinion is refuted by the end of Barnabas"s fifth chapter.(156) Holtzmann has ably disposed of the considerations adduced by Keim.(157) Barnabas quotes the book of Enoch as _Scripture_;(158) and an apocryphal prophecy is introduced with, "another prophet says."(159)
As far as we can judge from Eusebius"s account of Papias(160) (about 150 A.D.), that writer knew nothing of a New Testament canon. He speaks of Matthew and Mark; but it is most probable that he had doc.u.ments which either formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark, or were taken into them and written over.(161) According to Andreas of Caesarea he was acquainted with the Apocalypse of John; while Eusebius testifies to his knowledge of 1 Peter and 1 John. But he had no conception of canonical authority attaching to any part of the New Testament. His language implies the opposite, in that he prefers unwritten tradition to the gospel he speaks of. He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of _inspired_ gospels.
We need not notice the three short Syriac epistles attributed to Ignatius, as we do not believe them to be his, but of later origin. Traces of later ideas about the canonicity of the New Testament appear in the shorter Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (about 175 A.D.) There _the Gospel_ and _the Apostles_ are recognized as the const.i.tuents of the book.(162) The writer also used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for there is a quotation from it in the epistle to the Smyrnians.(163) The second part of the collection seems to have wanted the epistle to the Ephesians.(164) The two leading parties, long antagonistic, had now become united; the apostles Peter and Paul being mentioned together.(165) In the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs (about 170 A.D.), Paul"s life is said to be described in "holy books," _i.e._, his own epistles and the Acts.(166)
Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) knew the first and third of the synoptic gospels.
His use of Mark"s does not appear. His knowledge of the fourth is denied by many, and zealously defended by others. Thoma finds proofs that Justin knew it well, and used it freely as a text-book of gnosis, without recognizing it as the historical work of an apostle; an hypothesis enc.u.mbered with difficulties.(167) Whatever be said about Justin"s acquaintance with this gospel; its existence before 140 A.D. is incapable either of decisive or probable proof; and this father"s Logos-doctrine is less developed than the Johannine, because it is enc.u.mbered with the notion of miraculous birth by a virgin. The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism; and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible. Apologists should abstain from strong a.s.sertions on a point so difficult, as that each "gospel is distinctly recognized by him;" for the noted pa.s.sage in the dialogue with Trypho does not support them.(168) It is pretty certain that he employed an extra-canonical gospel, the so-called gospel of the Hebrews. This Petrine doc.u.ment may be referred to in a pa.s.sage which is unfortunately capable of a double interpretation.(169) He had also the older Acts of Pilate. Paul"s epistles are never mentioned, though he doubtless knew them. Having little sympathy with Paulinism he attached his belief much more to the primitive apostles. The Apocalypse, 1 Peter, and 1 John he esteemed highly; the epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts he treated in the same way as the Pauline writings. Justin"s canon, as far as divine authority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament. He was merely on the threshold of a divine canon made up of primitive Christian writings, and attributed no exclusive sanct.i.ty to those he used because they were not to him the only source of doctrine. Even of the Apocalypse he says, "A man among us named John, &c., wrote it."(170) In his time none of the gospels had been canonized, not even the synoptists, if, indeed, he knew them all. Oral tradition was the chief fountain of Christian knowledge, as it had been for a century. In his opinion this tradition was embodied in writing; but the doc.u.ments in which he looked for all that related to Christ were not the gospels alone. He used others freely, not looking upon any as _inspired_, for that idea could arise only when a selection was made among the current doc.u.ments. He regarded them all as having been written down from memory, and judged them by criteria of evidence conformable to the Old Testament Scriptures. Though lessons out of Gospels (some of our present ones and others), as also out of the prophets, were read in a.s.semblies on the first day of the week,(171) the act of converting the Christian writings into _Scripture_ was posterior; for the mere reading of a gospel in churches on Sunday does not prove that it was considered divinely authoritative; and the use of the epistles, which formed the second and less valued part of the collection, must still have been limited.
Justin"s disciple, Tatian (160-180 A.D.), wrote a _Diatessaron_ or harmony of the gospels, which began, according to Ephrem Syrus, with John i. 1; but our knowledge of it is uncertain. The author omitted the genealogies of Jesus and everything belonging to His Davidic descent. He seems also to have put into it particulars derived from extra-canonical sources such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Doubtless he was acquainted with Paul"s writings, as statements made in them are quoted; but he dealt freely with them according to Eusebius, and even rejected several epistles, probably first and second Timothy.(172)
In Polycarp"s epistle (about 160 A.D.), which is liable to strong suspicions of having been written after the death of the bishop,(173) there are reminiscences of the synoptic gospels; and most of Paul"s epistles as well as I Peter were used by the writer. But the idea of canonical authority, or a peculiar inspiration belonging to these writings, is absent.
The author of the second Clementine epistle (about 150-160) had not a New Testament canon made up of the four gospels and epistles. His _Scripture_ was the Old Testament, to which is applied the epithet "the Books" or "the Bible;" and the words of Christ. "The Apostles" immediately subjoined to "the Books," does not mean the New Testament, or a special collection of the apostolic epistles, as has been supposed.(174) The preacher employed a gospel or gospels as _Scripture_; perhaps those of Matthew and Luke, not the whole doc.u.ments, but the parts containing the words of Christ.(175) He also used the Gospel of the Egyptians as an authoritative doc.u.ment, and quoted his sources freely. With the Johannine writings he seems to have been unacquainted.(176)
Athenagoras of Athens wrote an apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius (176 A.D.). In it he uses written and unwritten tradition, testing all by the Old Testament which was his only authoritative canon. He makes no reference to the Christian doc.u.ments, but adduces words of Jesus with the verb "he says." It is not clear whether he quoted from the Synoptics; perhaps the pa.s.sages which are parallel to Matthew v. 44, 45, 46,(177) and Mark x. 6,(178) were taken from these; but the matter is somewhat uncertain. His treatise on the resurrection appeals to a pa.s.sage in one of Paul"s epistles.(179)
Dionysius of Corinth ( 170 A.D.) complains of the falsification of his writings, but consoles himself with the fact that the same is done to the "Scriptures of the Lord," _i.e._, the gospels containing the Lord"s words; or rather the two parts of the early collection, "the gospel" and "the apostle" together; which agrees best with the age and tenor of his letters.(180) If such be the meaning, the collection is put on a par with the Old Testament, and regarded as inspired.
In the second epistle of Peter (about A.D. 170) Paul"s epistles are regarded as Scripture (iii. 16.) This seems to be the earliest example of the canonizing of any New Testament portion. Here a brotherly recognition of the Gentile apostle and his productions takes the place of former opposition. A false interpretation of his epistles is even supposed to have induced a departure from primitive apostolic Christianity.
The letter of the churches at Vienne and Lyons (177 A.D.) has quotations from the epistles to the Romans, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, Acts, the gospels of Luke and John, the Apocalypse. The last is expressly called _Scripture_.(181) This shows a fusion of the two original tendencies, the Petrine and Pauline; and the formation of a Catholic church with a common canon of authority. Accordingly, the two apostles, Peter and Paul, are mentioned together.
Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.) was familiar with the gospels and most of Paul"s epistles, as also the Apocalypse. Pa.s.sages are cited from Paul as "the divine word."(182) He ascribes the fourth gospel to John, calling him an inspired man, like the Old Testament prophets.(183) We also learn from Jerome that he commented on the gospels put together by way of harmony.(184)
The author of the epistle to Diognetus (about 200 A.D.) shows his acquaintance with the gospels and Paul"s epistles; but he never cites the New Testament by way of proof. Words are introduced into his discourse, in pa.s.sing and from memory.(185)
The conception of a Catholic _canon_ was realized about the same time as that of a Catholic _church_. One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection a.s.sumed a form that carried with it the idea of _holy_ and _inspired_.(186) The way in which it was done was by raising the apostolic writings higher and higher till they were of equal authority with the Old Testament, so that the church might have a rule of appeal. But by lifting the Christian productions up to the level of the old Jewish ones, injury was done to that living consciousness which feels the opposition between spirit and letter; the latter writings tacitly a.s.suming or keeping the character of a perfect rule even as to form. The Old Testament was not brought down to the New; the New was raised to the Old. It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books of the New Testament as sacred doc.u.ments clothed with divine authority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted. They were not solicitous about a canon circ.u.mscribed within certain limits.
In the second half, then, of the second century there was a canon of the New Testament consisting of two parts called _the gospel_(187) and _the apostle_.(188) The first was complete, containing the four gospels alone; the second, which was incomplete, contained the Acts of the Apostles and epistles, _i.e._, thirteen letters of Paul, one of Peter, one of John, and the Revelation. How and where this canon originated is uncertain. Its birthplace may have been Asia Minor, like Marcion"s; but it may have grown about the same time in Asia Minor, Alexandria, and Western Africa. At all events, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian agree in recognizing its existence.
Irenaeus had a canon which he adopted as apostolic. In his view it was of binding force and authoritative. This contained the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the first epistle of John, and the Revelation. He had also a sort of appendix or deutero-canon, which he highly esteemed without putting it on a par with the received collection, consisting of John"s second epistle, the first of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The last he calls _Scripture_.(189) The epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, James"s, second Peter, and third John he ignored.
Clement"s collection was more extended than Irenaeus". His appendix or deutero-canon included the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 John, Jude, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas. He recognized no obligatory canon, distinct and of paramount authority. But he separated the New Testament writings by their traditionally apostolic character and the degree of importance attached to them. He did not attach the modern idea of _canonical_ in opposition to _non-canonical_, either to the four gospels or any other part of the New Testament. Barnabas is cited as an apostle.(190) So is the Roman Clement.(191) The Shepherd of Hermas is spoken of as _divine_.(192) Thus the line of the h.o.m.ologoumena is not marked off even to the same extent as in Irenaeus.
Tertullian"s canon consisted of the gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and 1 John. As an appendix he had the epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 John probably, and 1 Peter. This deutero-canon was not regarded as authoritative. No trace occurs in his works of James" epistle, 2 Peter, and 3 John. He used the Shepherd, calling it _Scripture_,(193) without implying, however, that he put it on a par with the usually acknowledged canonical writings; but after he became a Montanist, he repudiated it as the apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers, "put among the apocryphal and false, by every council of the churches."(194) It was _not_, however, reckoned among the spurious and false writings, either at Rome or Carthage, in the time of Tertullian. It was merely placed outside the universally received works by the western churches of that day.
These three fathers did not fix the canon absolutely. Its limits were still unsettled. But they sanctioned most of the books now accepted as divine, putting some extra-canonical productions almost on the same level with the rest, if not in theory, at least in practice.
The canon of Muratori is a fragmentary list which was made towards the end of the second century (170 A.D.). Its birthplace is uncertain, though there are traces of Roman origin. Its translation from the Greek is a.s.sumed, but that is uncertain. It begins with the four gospels in the usual order, and proceeds to the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the epistles of John, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse. The epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 John and James are not named. The Apocalypse of Peter is also mentioned, but as not universally received. Of the Shepherd of Hermas, it is stated that it may be read in the Church. The epistle "to the Laodiceans" may either be that to the Ephesians, which had such superscription in Marcion"s canon, or less probably the supposit.i.tious epistle mentioned in the codex Boerneria.n.u.s,(195) after that to Philemon, and often referred to in the middle ages.(196) That "to the Alexandrians"
is probably the epistle to the Hebrews; though this has been denied without sufficient reason. According to the usual punctuation, both are said to have been forged in Paul"s name, an opinion which may have been entertained among Roman Christians about 170 A.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews was rejected in the west, and may have been thought a supposit.i.tious work in the interests of Paulinism, with some reason because of its internal character,(197) which is at least semi-Pauline, though its Judaistic basis is apparent. The story about the origin of the fourth gospel with its apostolic and episcopal attestation, evinces a desire to establish the authenticity of a work which had not obtained universal acceptance at the time.(198) It is difficult to make out the meaning in various places; and there is considerable diversity of opinion among expositors of the doc.u.ment.(199) In accord with these facts we find Serapion bishop of the church at Rhossus, in Cilicia,(200) allowing the public use of the gospel of Peter;(201) which shows that there was no exclusive gospel-canon at the end of the second century, at least in Syria. The present canon had not then pervaded the churches in general.
What is the result of an examination of the Christian literature belonging to the second century? Is it that a canon was then fixed, separating some books from others by a line so clear, that those on one side of it were alone reckoned inspired, authoritative, of apostolic origin or sanction; while those on the other were considered uninspired, unauthoritative, without claim to apostolicity, unauthentic? Was the separation between them made on any clear principle or demarcation? It cannot be said so. The century witnessed no such fact, but merely the incipient efforts to bring it about. The discriminating process was begun, not completed. It was partly forced upon the prominent advocates of a policy which sought to consolidate the Jewish and Gentile-Christian parties, after the decline of their mutual antagonism, into a united church. They were glad to transfer the current belief in the infallible inspiration of the Old Testament, to selected Christian writings, as an effective means of defence against those whom they considered outside a new organization-the Catholic Church.
The stichometrical list of the Old and New Testament Scriptures in the Latin of the Clermont MS. (D), was that _read_ in the African Church in the third century. It is peculiar. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and the historical books, follow Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Sirach, the twelve minor prophets, the four greater; three books of the Maccabees, Judith, Esdras, Esther, Job, and Tobit. In the New Testament, the four gospels, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, are succeeded by ten epistles of Paul, two of Peter, the epistle of James, three of John, and that of Jude. The epistle to the Hebrews (characterized as that of Barnabas), the Revelation of John, Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, follow. The last three const.i.tute a sort of appendix; and the number of their verses is given. It is possible that the carelessness of a transcriber may have caused some of the singularities observable in this list; such as the omission of the epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians; but the end shows a freer idea of books fit for reading than what was usual even at that early time in the African Church.(202)
In Syria a version of the New Testament for the use of the church was made early in the third century. This work, commonly called the Pes.h.i.to, wants 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. It has, however, all the other books, including the epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. The last two were received as apostolic.
Towards the middle of the third century, Origen"s(203) testimony respecting the Canon is of great value. He seems to have distinguished three cla.s.ses of books-authentic ones, whose apostolic origin was generally admitted, those not authentic, and a middle-cla.s.s not generally recognized or in regard to which his own opinion wavered. The first contained those already adopted at the beginning of the century both in the East and West, with the Apocalypse, and the epistle to the Hebrews _so far as it contains Pauline ideas_;(204) to the second belongs the Shepherd of Hermas, though he sometimes hesitated a little about it,(205) the epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the gospel according to the Hebrews, the gospel of the Egyptians, and the preaching of Peter;(206) to the third, the epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.(207) The separation of the various writings is not formally made, nor does Origen give a list of them. His cla.s.sification is gathered from his works; and though its application admitted of considerable lat.i.tude, he is cautious enough, appealing to the tradition of the church, and throwing in qualifying expressions.(208)
The Canon of Eusebius(209) is given at length in his _Ecclesiastical History_.(210) He divides the books into three cla.s.ses, containing those writings _generally received_,(211) those _controverted_,(212) and the _heretical_.(213) The first has the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, the Apocalypse.(214) The second cla.s.s is subdivided into two, the first corresponding to Origen"s _mixed_(215) or _intermediate_ writings, the second to his _spurious_(216) ones. The former subdivision contains the epistle of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John; the latter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the Hebrews. The third cla.s.s has the gospels of Peter, of Thomas, the traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter, Andrew, and John. The subdivisions of the second cla.s.s are indefinite. The only distinction which Eusebius puts between them is that of ecclesiastical use. Though he cla.s.ses as _spurious_ the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the Hebrews, and does not apply the epithet to the epistle of James, the 2 of Peter, 2 and 3 John; he uses of James"s in one place the verb _to be counted spurious_.(217) In like manner he speaks of the Apocalypse of Peter and the epistle of Barnabas as _controverted_.(218) The _mixed_ or _spurious_ of Origen are vaguely separated by Eusebius; both come under the general head of the _controverted_; for after specifying them separately he sums up, "all these will belong to the cla.s.s of the _controverted_," the very cla.s.s already described as containing "books well known and recognized by most," implying also that they were read in the churches.(219)
It is somewhat remarkable that Eusebius does not mention the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in this list. But he speaks of it in another place as a production whose authenticity was generally acknowledged,(220) and of its public use in most churches both formerly and in his own time.
This wide-spread reading of it did not _necessarily_ imply canonicity; but the mode in which Eusebius characterizes it, and its extensive use in public, favor the idea that in many churches it was almost put on equality with the productions commonly regarded as authoritative. The canonical list was not fixed immovably in the time of Eusebius. Opinions about books varied, as they had done before.
The testimony of Eusebius regarding the canon, important as it is, has less weight because of the historian"s credulity. One who believed in the authenticity of Abgar"s letters to Christ, and in the canon of the four gospels at the time of Trajan, cannot take rank as a judicious collector or sifter of facts.
About 332 A.D. the Emperor Constantine entrusted Eusebius with the commission to make out a complete collection of the sacred Christian writings for the use of the Catholic Church. How this order was executed we are not told. But Credner is probably correct in saying that the code consisted of all that is now in the New Testament except the Revelation.