The New Testament is the collection of the Sacred Books of Christians.
It forms in the Bible the distinctive possession of Christians, just as
the Old Testament is the collection of Sacred Books which Christians
share with Jews. Every term in the definition is significant and has a
history. There are, first, the Books; then, the Collection; then, the
Sacred Volume, complete as such in idea, though not as yet complete in
its actual contents; and, lastly, the Sacred Volume in its full
dimensions, as it has come down to us.
There is a double development, of quality and of quantity; of quality,
as to the estimate formed of the books, their increasing recognition as
sacred; and of quantity, by which the books so recognized were gradually
brought up to their present number. Our duty will be to describe this
double process, and we shall do so under the four heads: ([alpha]) The
Growth of a specifically Christian Literature; ([beta]) The Collection
of the Books into a single volume, made up of ordered groups; ([gamma])
The investing of this volume with the character of a Sacred Book; and
([delta]) The gradual settlement by which the volume assumed its present
dimensions, neither less nor more.
The model throughout was the Old Testament. The result was attained when
there was a definite volume called the New Testament by the side of the
earlier volume called the Old Testament, complete like it, and like it
endowed with the attributes of a Sacred Book. This is the consummation
towards which events had been steadily moving--not at first consciously,
for it was some time before the tendencies at work were consciously
realized--but ending at last in the complete equation of Old Testament
and New, and in the bracketing together of both as the first and second
volumes of a single Bible. This is the process that we shall have to
describe. And because the process before us is the gradual assimilation
of New Testament and Old Testament, we shall have to include at each
step all that bears upon this. For instance, at starting, it will not be
enough for us simply to tell the story how the Books of the New
Testament came to be written, but we shall have to point out what there
was about them which fitted them to be what they afterwards became, what
inherent qualities they possessed which suggested the estimate
ultimately put upon them; in others words, how they came to be not only
a collection of Christian books, but a collection of Christian sacred
books, or part of a Bible.
([alpha]) _The Growth of a Christian Literature._ 1. _The Pauline
Epistles._--The Bible of Jesus and His disciples was the Old Testament.
And both Jesus and His disciples were to all appearance content with
this. It was probably two full decades after the death of Christ before
there were any specifically Christian writings at all. The first
generation of Christians was not given to writing. There was not only no
obvious reason why it should write, but there was a positive reason why
it should not write. This reason lay in the dominant attitude of
Christians, which was what we call "eschatological." The first
generation of Christians lived in the daily expectation that Christ
would return from heaven. The truth is, that not only were Christians
expecting (as we say) the Second Coming of the Messiah, but what they
expected was _the_ Coming. The Messiah, as all Jews conceived of Him,
was a superhuman being; and His First Coming as a man among men did not
count as really Messianic. The whole first generation of Christians
looked intently for His Coming in power and great glory, which they
believed to be near at hand. In such a state of mind as this there was
no motive for seeking permanence by writing. Men who imagined that they
might at any moment be caught up to meet the Lord in the air were not
likely to take steps for the instruction of the generations that might
come after them.
Hence the first Christian writings were no deliberate product of
theologians who supposed themselves to be laying the foundation of a
sacred volume. They were not an outcome of the dominant tendencies of
the time, but they arose rather in spite of them, in the simplest way,
just from the practical needs of the moment.
It was thus that St Paul came to write his two epistles to the
Thessalonians, the oldest Christian documents that we possess. By this
time he was launched on his missionary labours; he had founded a number
of churches, and he was going on to found others. And these earliest
epistles are just the substitute for his personal presence, advice which
he took occasion to send to his converts after he had left them. There
are a few indications that he had sent similar communications to other
churches before, but these have not been preserved. Indeed the wonder
is--and it is a testimony to the strength of the impression which St
Paul left upon all with whom he came into contact--that these missionary
letters of his should have begun to be preserved so soon.
Both Epistles to the Thessalonians have for their object to calm
somewhat the excited expectations of which we have spoken.
The first Epistle hits exactly the prominent features in the situation,
when it reminds the Thessalonians how they had "turned unto God from
idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from
heaven," who would deliver them from the wrath to come (1 Thess. i. 9,
10). The turning from idols was of course peculiar to the Gentile
communities, but the waiting for the Messiah from heaven was common to
all Christians, whatever their origin. In this we may take the epistle
as typical of the state of the whole Church at the time. And there is
another important passage which shows why, in spite of its natural and
occasional character, the epistle exhibits the germs of that essential
quality which caused all the books of the New Testament to be so highly
estimated. The apostle again reminds his readers how they had received
his preaching "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word
of God," which showed its power by the way in which it took hold of
those who believed in it (1 Thess. ii. 13). The reference is of course
primarily to the spoken word, but the written word had the same
qualities as the spoken. It was the deep impression made by these which
prepared Christians generally to accept the apostolic writings as
inspired, and therefore sacred. There is no greater mistake than to
suppose that the estimate formed by the early Church of its Bible was a
merely arbitrary verdict imposed by an external authority; it was the
expression, and the natural expression (though following certain
prescribed lines), of its real sense of the value and fundamentally
divine origin of the writings which it treasured.
Nearest in character to the Thessalonian Epistles are the two to
Corinth, which have perhaps an interval of a year and a half between
them. When 1 Corinthians was written, the attitude of the Church was
still strongly eschatological (1 Cor. i. 7, 8, iii. 13-15, vii. 26,
29-31, xv. 25, 26, 51-54, xvi. 23). The thoughts of men were still set
upon the near approach of the end, the troublous times that would issue
in the break-up of the existing order and the return of Christ to
introduce a new era. There was no idea of constructing a systematic
theology; Christ was still the Jewish Messiah, and His Coming was
conceived of as the Jews conceived of the coming of the Messiah, as a
great supernatural event transforming the face of things and
inaugurating the reign of God. In view of this approaching revolution,
both the Church and the world were regarded as living from hand to
mouth. It was useless to attempt to found permanent institutions;
everything was provisional and for the moment. And yet, even under these
conditions, some practical arrangements had to be made. The epistle is
taken up with matters of this kind; either the apostle is reproving
disorders and abuses actually existing in the Church, and almost sure to
exist in a young community that had just adopted a novel method of life
and had as yet no settled understanding of the principles involved in
it; or else he is replying to definite questions put to him by his
converts. In all this the epistle is still a genuine letter, and not a
treatise. It only rises from time to time above the level of a letter,
through the extraordinary penetration, force, enthusiasm and elevation
of feeling that the apostle throws into his treatment of more or less
ordinary topics. He can never rest until he has carried up the question
of the moment to some higher ground of faith or conduct. It is in this
incidental and digressive way that we get the description of the Gospel
in i. 18-ii. 16; of the Christian ministry in chs. iii., iv.; of the
principle of consideration for others in ch. ix.; of the Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper in chs. x., xi.; of Christian love in ch. xiii.; of
the Resurrection and its consequences in ch. xv.
2 Corinthians is even more a product of the situation: it is even more
taken up with personal relations. No epistle sheds more light on St
Paul's character as a man--so mobile, so tactful, so tender and
affectionate, and yet so statesmanlike and so commanding. If doctrinal
utterances occur from time to time, they are in every case incidental
and unpremeditated.
The development of doctrine in St Paul's epistles is due in part to the
gradual subsiding of the eschatological temper, but even more to the
growth of controversy. A crisis had arisen in Galatia owing to the
invasion of the churches, which St Paul had founded there, by
reactionary Jews. This called forth a letter[53] from St Paul, who felt
himself compelled to grapple at close quarters with teaching which he
saw cut at the very root of his own. He was thus led both to clear up
for himself and to state for the sake of others his whole conception of
soteriology--his answer to the question how was man to be set right
before God. That was a large part, and at the moment the most crucial
part, of the whole problem of religion.
Two or three years later (c. A.D. 55-56) St Paul was bent on paying a
visit to Rome. He was not going there straight, but to Jerusalem first.
He knew that he could only do this at the imminent peril of his life. It
seemed very doubtful whether he would accomplish his desire. And
therefore he took the opportunity to send to the Romans what is really a
summing up, not of the whole of Christianity, but of that side of
Christianity which the preceding controversy had brought into special
relief. He states his case as part of a larger question still--a
question that inevitably became pressing at that particular time--as to
the entire religious relation of Jew and Gentile.
These years of shock and conflict could not fail to have marked effect
upon the shaping of definite Christian doctrine. They drew attention
away from the future to the present, and to the past as leading up to
the present. They compelled a man like St Paul to theorize: thought was
driven inward; it was made to search for foundations, to organize itself
and knit together part with part. And the impulse thus given continued.
It showed itself strongly in the epistles of the next group, especially
Ephesians and Colossians. These epistles took their form at once from a
natural progression of thought and from a new phase of controversy, a
sort of Gnosticizing theory, or theories, which perverted Christian
practice and impaired the supremacy of Christ by placing other beings or
entities by His side. The apostle meets this by renewed emphasis on the
central position of Christ; and he at the same time carries a step
farther his conception of the unity of the Church, as embracing both Jew
and Gentile. The predominance of this somewhat recondite teaching gave
to these epistles even more the character of treatises, which in the
case of Ephesians is further enhanced by the fact that it is probably a
circular letter addressed not to a single church but to a group of
churches. Philemon is of course a pure letter, and Philippians mainly
so, the Pastorals, as their name implies, contain advice and
instructions to the apostle's lieutenants, Timothy and Titus, in the
temporary charge committed to them of churches that the apostle could
not visit himself.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is an epistolary treatise of uncertain date,
on the Pauline model, and by a disciple of St Paul or at least a writer
strongly influenced by him, though influenced also in no small degree by
the Jewish school of Alexandria represented by Philo. Of the many
theories as to the address, the most plausible are perhaps those which
would apply to a single congregation of Hebrew Christians in Rome, or to
a local church or group of local churches in Palestine, perhaps like
that of which the centre would be at Caesarea. It is not probable that
the epistle was addressed to the mother church at Jerusalem.
The above sketch of the growth and general character of the Pauline
Epistles is based upon the hypothesis that all thirteen are genuine.
But some discrimination should be made in detail. The scepticism which
challenges the whole collection may be set aside as radically perverse
and unreasonable. Apart from this, the keen criticism of modern times
has fastened especially upon two groups:--2 Thessalonians; Colossians
with Philemon, Ephesians and the Pastorals. The present writer would
accept without any real hesitation the first of these classes; and the
second he would also himself accept, though in regard to this class he
would think it right to speak with rather more reserve. This may be
said to be the position generally taken up by the leading English
scholars; it differs slightly in a conservative direction, but not
widely, from that of Harnack, a little more from that of Juelicher, and
again a little more from that of von Soden.
2 Thessalonians is still questioned by scholars of some note; but when
Juelicher can say that no question could be raised if it were not for
the existence of 1 Thessalonians (assumed to be genuine), this is
practically giving up the whole case, because the objections drawn
from 1 Thessalonians are, at least to the present writer, only an
example of faulty criticism. Still less is there any valid argument
against Philemon. It is a mark of the improved methods now current in
Germany that, whereas in 1886 this epistle was rejected by a scholar
as able and sober as Weizsaecker, Juelicher now pronounces it "among the
most assured possessions of the apostle" (_Einl._ 5th ed., p. 112).
But there is an arguable case of some real weight against Colossians,
Ephesians, Pastorals--least against Colossians and perhaps most
against the Pastorals. Colossians is strongly vouched for by its
connexion with Philemon. And the objections to Ephesians are
considerably reduced when it is taken as a circular letter. But it
should be admitted that, especially in regard to Ephesians and
Pastorals, there is a perceptible difference, (a) in style, and (b) in
characteristic subject matter, from the standard epistles. If these
later epistles are really the work of St Paul, the difference must be
accounted for (a) by a somewhat unusual range of variation in style
and thought on his part, and (b) by different environment and
different purpose. The question is whether these explanations are
adequate. The writer of this is inclined to think that they are. St
Paul was in any case an unusual writer, by no means facile or with
ready command of expression; still, he could by an effort express what
he wanted, and new situations called up new words and new minor ideas.
He was also a writer in whom the physical wear and tear must have been
enormous. It might well be believed that the change in the so-called
Epistles of the Imprisonment from the earlier epistles was due in part
to the physical effects of prolonged confinement, as compared with the
free, varied and open life and exciting controversies of earlier
years. There is also the uncertain element that may possibly be due to
the use of different amanuenses. An argument in favour of the
genuineness of the epistles may be derived from the fact that each of
the doubtful epistles is connected with others that are not doubtful
by subtle links both of style and thought. If the reasons suggested
above are not adequate, then we must set down the questioned epistles
to some disciple of St Paul, who has carried the ideas and principles
of his master a step farther or has applied them to a different set of
problems and conditions.
2. _The Gospels and Acts._--The Gospels and Acts arose in a way very
similar to the Pauline Epistles. Here too there was no deliberate
intention of writing a series of books that should be at once accepted
as sacred and authoritative. Here too the expectation of the near return
of Christ doubtless delayed for a number of years the desire and need
for written compositions. Here too the first steps were taken as the
exigencies of the moment dictated. We are again driven to fill up the
gaps in our knowledge by conjectures; but some such outline as the
following has much to commend it.
When the enterprise of Christian missionaries had gone on for some
little time, especially in the regions outside Palestine where there was
little or no previous knowledge of Christ and of Christian ideals, the
wandering prophets and apostles by whom the missions were mainly
conducted must have soon begun to feel the need for some sort of written
manual to supplement their own personal teaching. It was one of the
characteristics of the early Christian teachers that they rarely stayed
for any length of time in a place; they moved on, and the little
congregation was left to wait for another visitor, who might be some
time in coming. How was this interval to be filled? There would be every
degree of preparation, or want of preparation, for the reception of
Christian teaching. Some Jews, like those who are described in the
Gospel as "waiting for the kingdom of God," would be pious men and women
carefully trained in the Old Testament, who would be almost fit for the
kingdom even before they had heard of Christ. Other Gentile converts
would require instruction in the very rudiments of ethical and
monotheistic religion. Between these extremes there would be many shades
and degrees of ignorance and knowledge. How could these various cases be
met at once most simply and most effectually? We remember that the
Christian preachers were preaching before all things a Person, but a
Person whose interest for these new converts lay chiefly in the fact
that He was about to come and establish a supernatural kingdom for which
they had to fit themselves. The best way therefore of helping them to do
this was to provide them with an outline of the characteristic teaching
of Christ, which should be at the same time a clear statement of His
moral demands. It is probable that these requirements suggested the form
of the first Christian Gospel, which the writer believes to be rightly
identified with the so-called _Logia_ of St Matthew, now often
designated by the symbol Q. It did not aim at being a history, and still
less a complete history, but it was mainly a collection of sayings or
discourses suited to supply a rule of life.
It would be somewhat later than this, and not until the eschatological
outlook became weaker, and men began to turn their regard to the past
rather than to the future, that there would gradually arise a more
strictly historical interest. There is reason to think that in the
Christian Church this interest did not begin to be active much before
the decade A.D. 60-70. Its first conspicuous product was our present
Gospel of St Mark, which was probably composed at Rome within the years
64-70. We say advisedly "our present Gospel of St Mark," because there
does not seem to us to be any sufficient reason for presupposing an
_Ur-Marcus_, or older form of this Gospel.
These two works, the _Logia_ (or, as some prefer to call it, the
Non-Marcan document common to Matthew and Luke) and the Mark-Gospel,
were the prime factors in all the subsequent composition of Gospels. Our
Matthew and our Luke are just combinations, differently constructed, of
these two documents, with a certain amount of additional matter which
the editors had collected for themselves. And it is probable that other
Gospels of which only fragments have come down to us, like the Gospel
according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Peter, have been built up out
of the same materials.
St Luke was the first to write, as we may see from his preface,
definitely in the spirit of a historian. He addresses his work to
Theophilus, apparently an official person, who had already been taught
the main outlines of Christianity. He had planned his work on a large
scale; and in Acts we have its second volume. It is an event of no small
importance for criticism that so eminent a scholar as Prof. Harnack
should have come round to the view, almost universally prevalent in
England, that St Luke himself was the final editor and author of both
the Third Gospel and the Acts. It is a very secondary question what is
their exact date.
The reasons which converge upon the conclusion just expressed as to the
origin and nature of the fundamental documents worked up in our present
Synoptic Gospels are as follows:--(i.) The literary analysis of the
Synoptic Gospels brings out a number of sections common to Matthew and
Luke which probably at one time existed as an independent document.
(ii.) This document consisted, in the main though not entirely, of a
collection of Sayings of the Lord, which set in strong relief at once
His character and the moral and religious ideal that He desired to
commend. (iii.) We have an express statement, which must have been
originally made before the end of the first century, that the apostle
Matthew composed in Hebrew a work described as _Logia_. This word need
not mean, but may quite well and pointedly mean, a collection specially
of Sayings, and would still more aptly denote a collection of divine or
authoritative sayings ([Greek: logia] = prop. "oracles"). (iv.) We know
further that the conditions of early Christian missionary teaching were
such as have been described. We learn this especially from the
_Didache_; and the first part of that work, the so-called "Two-Ways," is
commonly thought to have been in the first instance a Jewish manual put
into the hands of proselytes. On our hypothesis the _Logia_ would have
been a sort of Christian manual used with a similar object. (v.) We are
confirmed in this opinion by the fact that the epistles of St Paul
furnish many indications that Christians in general, including those who
had not been much in contact with the original Twelve, were well
acquainted with the leading features in the character of Christ and in
the Christian ideal, although there is little corresponding evidence for
their knowledge of details in the life of Christ.
There is a similar statement to the one mentioned above, that like it
must have been originally made before the end of the first century, as
to a Gospel composed by St Mark on the basis mainly of the preaching of
St Peter, though this need not exclude personal experience (as, e.g.,
perhaps in Mark xiv. 51-52) or information derived from other sources.
Only raw materials came from St Peter, and those probably not checked or
revised by him; the arrangement is due to Mark himself, and is more
successful than might have been expected in the circumstances--indeed so
successful as to suggest advice from some good quarter. According to
Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185), who is more precise than Clement of Alexandria,
the Gospel was not published until after the death of Peter, which would
place its composition between the limits A.D. 65 and 70. The phenomena
which are sometimes supposed to require the hypothesis of an _Ur-Marcus_
are more simply and satisfactorily explained as incidents in the
transmission of the Marcan text.
The matter peculiar to Matthew and Luke raises a number of interesting
questions which are still too much _sub judice_ to be answered
decidedly or dogmatically, though approximate and provisional answers
may before long be forthcoming. All parts of the problem have been
greatly forwarded by the recent publication of important works by
Wellhausen and Harnack (see below). The date of the completed Luke
depends (a) on whether or not we believe Luke himself or a later
disciple to be the author, and (b) whether or not we believe that the
author of Acts had seen Josephus' _Antiquities_, published in A.D. 93 or
94. Professor Burkitt takes an original line in maintaining that Luke
was the author of both works, and yet that he had seen _Antiq_. The
present writer is inclined to think the latter hypothesis not proven.
The date of Matthew cannot be fixed more nearly than 70-100.
3. _The Catholic Epistles._--The Catholic Epistles were so called in the
first instance from their wider and more indefinite address; they were
intended for Christians generally, or over some wide area, rather than
for a particular church or individual. 2 and 3 John are exceptions, but
probably came in under the wing of the larger epistle, which is strictly
"catholic." As applied to a class of epistles, the title dates from
Eusebius, early in the 4th century; the epithet is given to single
epistles by Origen, and is found as far back as the end of the 2nd
century. In later Latin usage "catholic" came to mean much the same as
"canonical," another name that was also given.
This group of epistles practically continues and supplements the work of
the epistles of St Paul, 1 Peter, if genuine, must date from the end of
the apostle's career (for the early composition claimed for it by B.
Weiss is a paradox that may be disregarded). It was written to instruct
and encourage the Christians of Asia Minor at a time of persecution,
which on the hypothesis of genuineness, would be the Neronian, i.e. a
secondary outbreak perhaps loosely connected with the onslaught in Rome.
The Epistle of James (also, if genuine) must be placed late in the
lifetime of the brother of the Lord. In that case it was probably not
written with any direct polemic against writings of St Paul, but against
hearsay versions of his teaching that had reached Jerusalem. Controversy
of this kind is not always conducted with complete understanding of that
which is being opposed. The Epistle of Jude cannot be either dated or
localized with any certainty. It seems on the whole most probable that 2
Peter is not a genuine work, but that it came from the same factory of
pseudonymous Petrine writings as the Apocalypse which bears the same
name, though the one has, and the other has not, obtained a place within
the Canon. This epistle was questioned from the first, and only gained
its place with much hesitation, and rather through slackness of
opposition than any conclusiveness of proof. The three Johannine
epistles may be more conveniently treated under the next head.
Even in the case of the two more important epistles, 1 Peter and James,
we have to add the qualification "if genuine," but rather perhaps
because of the persistence with which they are challenged than because
of inherent defect of attestation. The evidence for 1 Peter is both
early in date and wide in range, and the book was one of those that
passed as "acknowledged" in antiquity. The evidence for James is not so
widely diffused but is found in early writings. Perhaps the position of
these two epistles might be described as not unlike that of Colossians
and Ephesians. Instead of casting doubt upon them, we should prefer to
say that they are both probably genuine, but that there are features
about them that are not as yet fully explained. The chief of these
features is their relation to the writings of St Paul. There is indeed
so much that is Pauline in 1 Peter as to give distinct attractiveness to
the hypothesis, which is most elaborately maintained by Zahn, that a
larger share than usual in the composition of the letter was left to
Silvanus (1 Peter v. 12). Nor does it appear to us that the objections
to this theory brought by Dr Chase in his excellent article on the
epistle in Hastings' _Dictionary_ are really so fatal as he supposes.
The epistle is more the work of a companion of St Paul of long standing
than of one who, with quite different and independent antecedents, had
only been influenced by the perusal of one or two of St Paul's letters.
In the Epistle of James we have a really distinct type; and it seems to
us that the degree to which the epistle misses its mark as a polemic may
be easily and naturally accounted for in more ways than one.
4. _The Johannine Writings_.--The Gospel and Epistles that bear the name
of John, and the Apocalypse, form a group of writings that stand very
much by themselves and are still the subject of active discussion. The
points in regard to them that would unite the greatest number of
suffrages would seem to be these:--(i.) That, except 2 Peter, they are
probably the latest of the New Testament writings, and that they form a
group closely connected among themselves, though it is not clear how
many hands have been at work in them, (ii.) That they arose not far from
each other towards the end of the 1st century. The Apocalypse is
plausibly dated by Reinach and Harnack near to the precise year 93, and
the other writings may be referred to the reign of Domitian (81-96),
though many critics would extend the limit to some two decades later,
(iii.) The writings are to be connected, either more or less closely,
with John of Ephesus, who was a prominent figure towards the end of the
1st century. On the other hand, the greatest differences would be:--(i.)
As to the personal identity of this John--is he himself "the beloved
disciple"? Is he the apostle, the son of Zebedee or another? Can the
writer of the Apocalypse be the same as the writer of the Gospel and
Epistles? (ii.) What is the exact relation of John of Ephesus to the
Gospel? Is he its author or only the authority behind it? (iii.) How far
is the Gospel intended to be, and how far is it, in the strict sense
historical? This last question is beginning to overshadow all the rest.
Whatever may be the ultimate decision on these intricate questions, the
Fourth Gospel in any case played a very important part in the history of
the Church and of Christian theology. It drew together and gathered up
into itself the forces at work in the apostolic age; and, by reaching
out a hand as it were (through the preface) towards Greek philosophy, it
succeeded in so formulating the leading doctrines of Christianity as to
make it more acceptable than it had as yet been to the Gentile world,
and in securing for the Gospel a place in the main stream of European
thought. It is probably true to say that no other primitive Christian
writing has had so marked an effect on all later attempts to systematize
the Christian creed.
The situation as to the Fourth Gospel has been altered in recent years
by the statement attributed to Papias that the two sons of Zebedee
(and not only one) were slain by the Jews--a statement which becomes
more difficult to put aside as the evidence for it increases (full
details in Burkitt, _Gosp. Hist_. pp. 252-255; E. Schwartz, _Ueber d.
Tod d. Soehne Zebedaci_, Berlin, 1904). But this statement does not
affect the historical character of John of Ephesus, who is also
expressly described by Papias as "a disciple of the Lord" (Eus. _H.E_.
iii. 39. 4). On the other hand, the theory that the Gospel is a
thorough-going allegory must be hard to maintain in view of the
frequent appeals to "witness" which is several times denned as
eye-witness (John i. 15, 32, iii. 11, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 John i. 1-3;
cf. John v. 36, x. 25). This is borne out by Ignatius with his strong
emphasis on the reality of the Gospel history (_Eph_. xx. 2; _Trall_,
x.; _Smyrn_. i. 1, 2, ii., iii. 1-3, v. 2). If the writer of the
Gospel were simply inventing his facts, they would be no proof of his
thesis (John xx. 31). It is a paradox that he should be invoked "to
prove the reality of Jesus Christ" (as against Docetism), and yet that
it should be contended at the same time that for him "ideas, and not
events, were the true realities."
5. _Other Literature not included in the New Testament._--It must not be
thought that the primitive Christian literature came abruptly to an end
with the writings that are included in our present New Testament. On the
contrary, all round these there was a broad fringe of writings more or
less approximating to them in character. Most nearly on the lines of the
New Testament are the so-called Apostolic (really Sub-Apostolic) Fathers
(Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, _Didache_, Barnabas, the letters of
Ignatius and the single letter of Polycarp, the _Shepherd_ of Hermas,
the homily commonly known as the Second Epistle of Clement). These are
in most cases the writings of leading persons in the Church who took up
and continued the tradition of the apostles. Barnabas and 2 Clement are
more eccentric, but the writers must have been persons of some note.
Outside this group would come what are called the Apocryphal Gospels and
Acts (Gospel according to Hebrews, according to Egyptians, of Peter, of
Truth, of the Twelve [or Ebionite Gospel], the recently recovered
so-called _Logia_; the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Protevangelium of James,
the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul, Peter, John,
Andrew, Thomas; the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter). As the
2nd century wears on, we come to controversial or philosophical works by
Agrippa, Castor, Quadratus, Aristides. With the middle of the century we
reach a considerable writer in Justin Martyr. With him the twilight
period which succeeds to the apostolic age is over, and we enter upon
the main course of ecclesiastical history. At this point, therefore, our
survey may end.
([beta]) _The Process of Discrimination and Collection_, 1.
_Discrimination._--Throughout the apostolic age Christians were
conscious of being carried forward in a great movement, the origin and
motive-power of which they regarded as supernatural. It began on the Day
of Pentecost, but continued in full tide almost to the end of the 1st
century, and, even when it began to subside, it did so quite gradually.
The moment of transition is clearly marked in the _Didache_, where the
_charismatic_ ministry of "apostles and prophets" is beginning to give
place to permanent local officials of the Church, bishops, presbyters
and deacons. The literature that we now call the New Testament held its
place because it was regarded as a product of the palmy days of that
great movement. It was considered to be the work of inspired men, of men
whom the Holy Spirit, at that time specially active in the Church, had
chosen as its organs. We have seen how St Paul, for instance, fully
believed that his own preaching had a force behind it which vindicated
for it the claim to be "the word of God" (1 Thess. ii. 13); and it was
inevitable that the other preachers and teachers should have had in
different degrees something of the same consciousness. This
consciousness receives perhaps its strongest expression in the
Apocalypse.
There is really no contradiction between this sense of a high calling
and mission, with a special endowment corresponding to it, and the other
fact that the writings from this age that have come down to us are all
(except perhaps the Apocalypse, and even the Apocalypse, in some degree,
as we see by the letters to the Seven Churches) strictly occasional and
natural in their origin. The lives and actions of apostles and prophets
were in their general tenor like those of other men; it was only that,
for the particular purpose of their mission, they found themselves
carried beyond and above themselves. St Paul himself knew when he was
speaking by the Spirit, and when he was not; and we too can recognize to
some extent when the _afflatus_ comes upon him. It is fortunate that
this should be so clearly marked in his epistles, because it enables us
to argue by analogy to the other writers. When we come to historical
books like the third Gospel and the Acts, we find the writer just
pursuing the ordinary methods of history, and not claiming to do
anything more (Luke i. 1-4). With the methods of history, these writers
were naturally exposed to the risks and chances of error attendant upon
those methods. There was hot at first among the writers any idea that
they were composing an infallible narrative. The freedom with which they
used each other's work, and with which the early texts were transmitted,
excludes this. But there was the idea that the whole movement of the
Church to which they gave expression was in a special sense divine. And
this belief was the fundamental principle that determined the marking
off of the writings of the first, or apostolic, age from the rest.
At the same time it must not be supposed that a hard and fast line can
be drawn beyond which the spiritual stimulus of this first age ceased.
The writings of Clement of Rome (A.D. 97) and of Ignatius (c. A.D. 110)
mark the transition. Ignatius, for instance, clearly distinguishes
between his own position and that of the apostles: "I do not enjoin you.
as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were
free, but I am a slave to this very hour" (Rom. iv. 3). And yet, none
the less, Ignatius is conscious of acting and speaking at times from a
kind of inspiration. "Even though certain persons desired to deceive me
after the flesh, yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it
knoweth whence it cometh and where it goeth, and it searcheth out the
hidden things. I cried out, when I was among you; I spake with a loud
voice, with God's own voice, give ye heed to the bishops, and the
presbyters and deacons" (_Philadelph_. vii. 1). In like manner Clement,
in two places (lix. 1, lxiii. 2), writes as though God were speaking
through him.
2. _Collection._--Concurrently with the tendency to discriminate between
the higher authority of certain writings and the lower authority of
others, there was also a tendency to collect and group together writings
of the first class. The earliest example of this tendency is in the case
of the Pauline Epistles. Marcion, we know (c. A.D. 140), had a
collection of ten out of thirteen, in the order, Gal., 1 and 2 Cor.,
Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodic. (= Eph.), Col., Phil., Philem. We observe
that the Pastorals are omitted. But it is highly probable that the
collection went back a full generation before Marcion. The short Epistle
of Polycarp contains references or allusions to no less than nine out of
the thirteen epistles, including 2 Thess., Eph., 1 and 2 Tim. Ignatius,
writing just before, gives clear indications of six, including 1 Tim.
and Titus. The inference lies near at hand that both writers had access
to the full collection of thirteen, not omitting the Pastorals. Polycarp
(_ad Phil_. xiii. 2) shows how strong was the interest in collecting the
writings of eminent men.
It of course did not follow that, because the letters of St Paul were
collected, they were therefore regarded as sacred. The feeling towards
them at first would be simply an instinct of respect and deference; but
we have seen above that the essential conditions of the higher estimate
were present all along, and were only waiting to be recognized as soon
as reflective thought was turned upon them. This process appears to have
been going on throughout the middle years of the 2nd century.
The famous passage of Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer_. iii. 15. 8) assumes the
possession by the Church of four authoritative Gospels and no more. This
is the general view of the Church of his time, except the little clique
known as the Alogi who rejected the Fourth Gospel, and Marcion, who only
recognized St Luke. But here again, we may go back some way farther.
Irenaeus writes (c. A.D. 185) as though the Four Gospels had held the
field as far back as he can remember. About A.D. 170 Tatian, the
disciple of Justin, composed out of these Gospels his _Diatessaron_. If
Justin used any other Gospel, his use of it was very subordinate.
Practically we may say that the estimate of the Four to which Tatian and
Irenaeus testify must have been well established by the middle of the
century, though sporadic instances may be found of the use of other
Gospels that did not become canonical. The sifting out of these was
proceeding steadily and gradually, and by the end of the century it may
be regarded as complete.
We must make allowance for the existence of this margin, and for the
blurring of the boundary-line that goes along with it. We cannot claim
for the Church absolute sureness of judgment as to what falls on one
side of the line and what on the other. It is possible, e.g., that a
mistake has been made in the case of 2 Peter, which, however, is
edifying enough. It is not less possible that writings like 1 Clem, and
Epp. Ignat. are not inferior in real religious value to the Epistle of
Jude. But, broadly speaking, the judgment of the early Church has been
endorsed by that of after ages.
Harnack raises an interesting question (_Reden u. Aufsaetze_. ii. 239
ff.), how it came about that Four Gospels were recognized, and not
only one. There are many indications early in the 2nd century of a
tendency towards the recognition of a single Gospel; for instance,
there are the local Gospels according to Hebrews, according to
Egyptians; Marcion had but one Gospel, St Luke, the Valentinians
preferred St John and so on; Tatian reduced the Four Gospels to one by
means of a Harmony, and it is possible that something of the kind may
have existed before he did this. There is probably some truth in the
view that the Church clung to its Four Gospels as a weapon against
Gnosticism; it could not afford to reduce the number of its documents.
But, over and above this, there was probably something in the
circumstances in which the canonical Gospels were composed, and in
their early history, which gave them a special prestige in the eyes of
the faithful. The story which Eusebius quotes from Clement of
Alexandria (_H.E_. vi. 14) seems to point to something of the kind.
3. _Influences at work._--The whole process of the formation of the New
Testament was steady and gradual. The critical period, during which the
conception grew up of the New Covenant with its sacred book by the side
of the Old Covenant, which in its written embodiment we call the Old
Testament, extends roughly over the 2nd century. By the last decades of
that century a preliminary list of these new Sacred Books had been
formed and placed by the side of the Old with substantially the same
attributes. We must briefly sketch the process by which this came about,
tracing the causes which led to the result and indicating the manner in
which they operated.
We have seen that the ultimate cause was the consciousness on the part
of the Church that the first age of its own history was characterized by
spiritual workings more intense than other times. This feeling had been
instinctive, and it found expression in several ways, each one of them
partial, when taken alone, but obtaining their full effect in
combination. It should be understood that the goal towards which events
were moving all the time was the equalizing of the New Testament with
the Old Testament.
(a) _Public Reading._--From the first the way in which the Epistles of
Paul were brought to the knowledge of the churches to which they were
addressed was by reading in the public assemblies for worship. This
was done by the direction of the apostle himself (1 Thess. v. 27; Col.
iv. 16). At first any writing that was felt to be useful for
edification was read in this way, especially if it had local
associations (cf. Dionysius of Corinth, _ap._ Eus. _H.E._ iv. 23. 11).
But, as worship became more thoroughly organized, it was invested with
increasing solemnity; the freedom of choice was gradually restricted;
and inasmuch as lections were regularly taken from the Old Testament,
it was only natural that other lections read alongside of them should
gradually be placed upon the same footing.
(b) _Authority of Christ and the Apostles._--As the words of prophets
and lawgivers had from the first carried their own authority with them
under the Old Covenant, so from the first the words of Christ needed
no commendation from without under the New. And what applied to words
of Christ soon came also to apply in their degree to words of the
apostles. The only difference was that an authority at first
instinctively assumed came to be consciously recognized and formally
defined. There was also a natural tendency towards levelling up the
different parts of books and groups of books. In other words, the
somewhat vague sense of spiritual power and impressiveness hardened
into the conception of sacred books united in a sacred volume.
(c) _Controversy._--The process was accelerated by the demand for a
standard or rule of faith and practice. At an early date in the 2nd
century this demand was met by the composition of the oldest form of
what we call the Apostles' Creed. But the Creed was but the condensed
essence of the New Testament scriptures, and behind it there lay an
appeal to these scriptures, which was especially necessary where (as
in the case of the Valentinian Gnostics) the dissident bodies
professed to accept the common belief of Christians. In its conflict
with Gnostics, Marcionites and Montanists the Church was led to insist
more and more upon its Bible, its own Bible, just as in its older
controversy with the Jews it had to insist on the Bible which it
inherited from them. This was a yet further cause of the equating of
the two parts of the sacred volume, which went on with an
imperceptible _crescendo_ through the first three quarters of the 2nd
century, and by the last quarter was fairly complete.
([gamma]) _Provisional Canon of New Testament_ (end of 2nd century).--By
the last quarter of the 2nd century the conception of a Christian Bible
in two parts, Old Testament and New Testament, may be said to be
definitely established. Already at the beginning of this period Melito
had drawn up a list of the twenty-two Books of the Old Covenant, i.e. of
the documents to which the Old Covenant made its appeal. It was a very
short step to the compiling of a similar list for the New Covenant,
which by another very short step becomes the New Testament, by the side
of the Old Testament. It is therefore not surprising, though a piece of
great good fortune, that there should be still extant a list of the New
Testament books that may be roughly dated from the end of the century.
This list published by Muratori in 1740, and called after him "the
Muratorian Fragment on the Canon," is commonly believed to be of Roman
origin and to be a translation from the Greek, though there are a few
dissentients on both heads. The list recognized four Gospels, Acts,
thirteen epistles of Paul, two epistles of John, Jude, Apocalypse of
John and (as the text stands) of Peter; there is no mention of Hebrews
or (apparently) of 3 John or Epistles of Peter, where it is possible--we
cannot say more--that the silence as to 1 Peter is accidental; the
_Shepherd_ of Hermas on account of its date is admitted to private, but
not public, reading; various writings associated with Marcion,
Valentinus, Basilides and Montanus are condemned.
There are many interesting points about this list, which still shows
considerable freshness of judgment, (i.) There are traces of earlier
discussions about the Gospels, both in disparagement of the Synoptics
as compared with St John, and in criticism of the latter as differing
from the former, (ii.) There is a healthy tendency to lay stress on
the historical value of narratives which proceed from eye-witnesses,
(iii.) An over-ruling and uniting influence is ascribed to the Holy
Spirit, (iv.) The writer is concerned to point out that letters
addressed to a single church and even to an individual may yet have a
wider use for the Church as a whole, (v.) The sense is not yet lost
that the appeal of the Old Testament is as coming from men of
prophetic gifts, and that of the New Testament as coming from
apostles, (vi.) It is in accordance with this that a time limit is
placed upon the books included in the New Testament, (vii.) Christians
are to be on their guard against writings put forth in the interest of
heretical sects.
When the data of Fragm. Murat. are compared with those supplied by the
writers of the last quarter of the 2nd and first of the 3rd centuries
(Tatian, Theoph. Ant., Iren., Clem. Alex., Tert., Hippol.), it is seen
that there is a fixed nucleus of writings that is acknowledged, with one
exception, over all parts of the Christian world. The exception is the
Syriac-speaking Church of Edessa and Mesopotamia. This Church at first
acknowledged only the Gospel (in the form of Tatian's _Diatessaron_),
Acts and the Epistles of Paul. These seem to have been the only books
translated immediately upon the foundation of the Edessan Church, though
an edition of the separate Gospels must have followed either before or
very soon afterwards. In all other churches the four Gospels, Acts and
Epistles of Paul are fixed, with the addition in nearly all of 1 Peter,
1 John. The Apocalypse was generally accepted in the West. Hebrews and
James were largely accepted in the East.
In the 3rd century the conspicuous figure is Origen (_ob_. 253), whose
principal service was, through the vast range of his knowledge, his
travels and his respect for tradition wherever he found it, to keep open
the wider limits of the Canon. There is not one of our present books
that he does not show himself inclined to accept, though he notes the
doubts in regard to 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. Later in the century
Dionysius of Alexandria applies some acute criticism to justify the
Alexandrian dislike of the Apocalypse.
([delta]) _The Final Canon_ (4th century).--Early in the 4th century
Eusebius, as a historian reviews the situation (_H.E_. iii. 25. 1). He
makes three classes; the first, including the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of
Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, is acknowledged; to these, if one likes, one may
add the Apocalypse. The second class is questioned, but accepted by the
majority; viz. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. The third class, of
works to be decidedly rejected, contains the Acts of Paul, Hermas,
Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, _Didache_; to these some would add Apoc.
of John, and others _Ev. sec. Hebr_. About the same time another line of
tradition is represented by Lucian and the school of Antioch. The
vernacular Church of Syria represented yet a third. In Egypt the
uncertainty and laxity of usage was still greater. This state of things
the great Athanasius set himself to correct, and he did so by laying
down a list identical with our New Testament as we have it now. It was
very largely the influence of Athanasius that finally turned the scale.
He was peculiarly qualified for exercising this influence, as his long
exile in the West made him familiar with Western usage, while he was
also able to bring to the West the usage that he was trying to establish
in the East. His efforts would be helped by Westerns, like Hilary and
Lucifer, who were exiled to the East. The triumph of the Athanasian
Canon, indeed, went along with the triumph of Nicene Christianity. And
while the movement received its impulse from Athanasius, the power by
which it was carried through and established was largely that of his
powerful ally, the Church of Rome.
The final victory was no doubt a little delayed. Asia Minor and Syria
were for most of the 4th century divided between the following of
Eusebius (Cyril of Jerusalem in A.D. 348, Gregory of Nazianzus, the list
of _Apost. Can_. 85, that attached to Can. 59 of the Council of
Laodicea, c. A.D. 363) and the school of Antioch. The leading members of
that school adopted 3 Epp. Cath. (James, 1 Peter, 1 John), Theod. Mops.
omitting this group altogether, and the whole school omitting Apoc.
Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 380) gives the two lists, Eusebian and
Antiochene, as alternatives. The Eusebian list only wanted the complete
admission of the Apocalypse to be identical with the Athanasian; and
Athanasius had one stalwart supporter in Epiphanius (_ob_. 403).
The original Syriac list, as we have seen, had neither Epp. Cath. nor
Apoc. The Peshito version, in regard to which Professor Burkitt's view
is now pretty generally accepted, that it was the work of Rabbula,
bishop of Edessa, 411-433, added the 3 Epp. Cath. The remaining 4 Epp.
Cath. and Apoc. were supplied in the Philoxenian version of 508, and
retained in the Harklean revision of 616. But both these were
Monophysite and of limited use, and the Nestorians still went on using
the Peshito.
Meantime, in the West, an important Synod was held by Damasus at Rome in
382 which, under the dominant influence of Jerome and the Athanasian
tradition, drew up a list corresponding to the present Canon. This was
ratified by Pope Gelasius (492-496), and independently confirmed for the
province of Africa by a series of Synods held at Hippo Regius in 393,
and at Carthage in 397 and 419, under the lead of Augustine. The formal
completion of the whole process in East and West was reserved for the
Quinisextine Council (Council in Trullo) of 692. But even after that
date irregularities occur from time to time, especially in the East.
In the fixing of the Canon, as in the fixing of doctrine, the decisive
influence proceeded from the bishops and the theologians of the period
325-450. But behind these was the practice of the greater churches; and
behind that again was not only the lead of a few distinguished
individuals, but the instinctive judgment of the main body of the
faithful. It was really this instinct that told in the end more than any
process of quasi-scientific criticism. And it was well that it should be
so, because the methods of criticism are apt to be, and certainly would
have been when the Canon was formed, both faulty and inadequate, whereas
instinct brings into play the religious sense as a whole; with spirit
speaking to spirit rests the last word. Even this is not infallible; and
it cannot be claimed that the Canon of the Christian Sacred Books is
infallible. But experience has shown that the mistakes, so far as there
have been mistakes, are unimportant; and in practice even these are
rectified by the natural gravitation of the mind of man to that which it
finds most nourishing and most elevating.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The separate articles on the various books of the New
Testament may be consulted for detailed bibliographies. The object of
the above sketch has been to embrace in constructive outline the
ground usually covered analytically and on a far larger scale by
Introductions to the New Testament, and by Histories of the New
Testament Canon. In English there is a standard work of the latter
class in Westcott's _General Survey of the History of the Canon of the
New Testament_ (first published in 1855, important revision and
additions in 4th ed. 1874, 7th ed. 1896), with valuable appendix of
documents at the end. There was also a useful collection of texts by
Prof. Charteris of Edinburgh, _Canonicity_ (1880), based on
Kirchhofer, _Quellensammlung_ (1844), but with improvements. The
leading documents are to be had in the handy and reliable _Kleine
Texte_ (ed. Lietzmann, from 1902). On Introduction the ablest older
English work was Salmon, _Historical Introduction to the Study of
N.T._ (1st ed. 1885, 5th ed. 1891); but, although still possessing
value as argument, this has been more distinctly left behind by the
progress of recent years. England has made many weighty contributions
both to Introduction and Canon, especially Lightfoot, _Essays on
Supernatural Religion_ (collected in 1889); editions of Books of the
New Testament and Apostolic Fathers; Westcott, editions; Hort,
especially _Romans and Ephesians_ (posthumous, 1895); Swete, editions;
Knowling and others. The Oxford Society of Historical Theology put out
a useful _New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers_ in 1905, and Prof.
Stanton of Cambridge, _The Gospels as Historical Documents_ (part i.
in 1903). Prof. Burkitt's _Gospel History and its Transmission_
appeared in 1906. For introductory matter the student will do well to
consult the _Dictionary of the Bible_ (ed. Hastings, 5 vols.,
1898-1904) and _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (ed. Cheyne and Black, 4 vols.,
1899-1903). Dr Hastings and his contributors belong more to the right
wing of criticism, and Dr Cheyne and his to the left. The systematic
Introduction is a characteristic production of Germany and has done
excellent service in its day, though there are signs that the analytic
method hitherto mainly practised is beginning to give place to
something more synthetic or constructive. The pioneer work in this
latter direction is Weizsaecker's skilful and artistic _Apostolisches
Zeitalter_ (1st ed. 1886, 3rd ed. 1901; Eng. trans. 1894-1895);
somewhat similar on a smaller scale is von Soden, _History of Early
Christian Literature_ (trans., 1906). Special mention should be made
of Wellhausen on the Synoptic Gospels (1903-1905), and Harnack,
_Beitraege z. Einleitung in d. N.T._ (part i. 1906, part ii. 1907). The
most important recent works on Introduction and Canon have been those
of H.J. Holtzmann (1st ed. 1885, 3rd ed. 1902), B. Weiss (1st ed.
1886, 3rd ed. 1897); a series of works by Th. Zahn, almost colossal in
scale and exhaustive in detail, embracing _Gesch. d. neut. Kanoens_ (2
vols., 1888-1892, third to follow), _Forschungen z. Gesch. d. neut.
Kan._ (7 parts, 1881-1907), _Einleitung_ (2 vols., 1897-1899),
_Grundriss d. Gesch. d. neut. Kan._ (1st ed. 1901, 2nd ed. 1904); A.
Juelicher, _Einleitung_ (1st and 2nd ed. 1894, 5th and 6th ed. 1906;
Eng. trans. by Miss Janet Ward, 1904). Zahn and Juelicher may be said
to supplement and correct each other, as they write from very
different points of view, and on Juelicher's side there is no lack of
criticism of his great opponent. Zahn's series is monumental in its
way, and his _Grundriss_ is very handy and full of closely packed and
(in statements of facts) trustworthy matter. Juelicher's work is also
highly practical, very complete and well proportioned in scale, and up
to a certain point its matter is also excellent. The _History of the
Canon_, by the Egyptologist Joh. Leipoldt (Leipzig, 1907), may also be
warmly recommended; it is clear and methodical, and does not make the
common mistake of assigning too much to secondary causes; the author
does not forget that he is dealing with a sacred book, and that he has
to show why it was held sacred. (W. Sa.)