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 documents,
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
documents, 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 document was the so-called second Epistle
of Peter. It is manifest that tradition assumed 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
circumstances 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 Titus,
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
passages 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, Peratæ, 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 Peratæ 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 Hæreses” usually appended to Tertullian’s _Præscriptiones
Hæreticorum_, and by Irenæus’s derivation of their heresy from that of
Valentinus. The latter father does not even speak of the Peratæ. 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 documents, 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 identity 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 document which we know he used, on the
authority of Eusebius. He does not refer to Paul except by implication in
a passage 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. Nösgen 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 assigned 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 retarded 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 passages 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 passage _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 documents which
either formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark, or were taken
into them and written over.(161) According to Andreas of Cæsarea 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 constituents 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
encumbered 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 encumbered 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 assertions on a point so difficult, as that each “gospel is
distinctly recognized by him;” for the noted passage 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 document may be referred to in a passage 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 sanctity 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 documents 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 documents. 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 assemblies 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 documents, but the parts containing the words of Christ.(175) He
also used the Gospel of the Egyptians as an authoritative document, 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 documents, but adduces words of Jesus with the
verb “he says.” It is not clear whether he quoted from the Synoptics;
perhaps the passages 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 passage 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. Passages 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
passing 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 assumed 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 assuming 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 documents 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 circumscribed 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, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian agree in
recognizing its existence.
Irenæus 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 Irenæus’. 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 Homologoumena is not marked off even to the same extent as
in Irenæus.
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
assumed, 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 supposititious
epistle mentioned in the codex Boernerianus,(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
supposititious 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 document.(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 constitute 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 Peshito, 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 classes of books—authentic ones, whose apostolic origin was
generally admitted, those not authentic, and a middle-class 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 classification is gathered from his works;
and though its application admitted of considerable latitude, 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 classes, 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 class
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 class has the gospels
of Peter, of Thomas, the traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter,
Andrew, and John. The subdivisions of the second class are indefinite. The
only distinction which Eusebius puts between them is that of
ecclesiastical use. Though he classes 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 class of the
_controverted_,” the very class 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.
The fifty copies which were made must have supplied Constantinople and the
Greek Church for a considerable time with an authoritative canon.
Eusebius’s catalogue agrees in substance with that of Origen’s. The
historian followed ecclesiastical tradition. He inquired diligently into
the prevailing opinions of the Christian churches and writers, with the
views held by others before and contemporaneously with himself, but could
not attain to a decided result. His hesitation stood in the way of a
clear, firm, view of the question. The tradition respecting certain books
was still wavering, and he was unable to fix it. Authority fettered his
independent judgment. That he was inconsistent and confused does not need
to be shown.
The exact principles that guided the formation of a canon in the earliest
centuries cannot be discovered. Strictly speaking there were none.
Definite grounds for the reception or rejection of books were not
apprehended. The choice was determined by various circumstances, of which
apostolic origin was the chief, though this itself was insufficiently
attested; for if it be asked whether all the New Testament writings
proceeded from the authors whose names they bear, criticism cannot reply
in the affirmative. The example and influence of churches to which the
writings had been first addressed must have acted upon the reception of
books. Above all, individual teachers here and there saw the necessity of
meeting heretics with their own weapons, in their own way, with _apostolic
records_ instead of oral tradition. The circumstances in which the
orthodox were placed led to this step, effecting a bond of union whose
need must have been felt while each church was isolated under its own
bishop and the collective body could not take measures in common. Writings
of more recent origin would be received with greater facility than such as
had been in circulation for many years, especially if they professed to
come from a prominent apostle. A code of apostolic writings, divine and
perfect like the Old Testament, had to be presented as soon as possible
against Gnostic and Manichæan heretics whose doctrines were injurious to
objective Christianity; while the multiplication of apocryphal works
threatened to overwhelm genuine tradition with a heap of superstition. The
Petrine and Pauline Christians, now amalgamated to a great extent, agreed
in hastening the canon-process.
The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age, and rocked with
traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the first to
the well-authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers
who contributed most to its early growth, Irenæus was credulous and
blundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and Clement of
Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied
with ecclesiastical ethics. Irenæus argues that the gospels should be four
in number, neither more nor less, because there are four universal winds
and four quarters of the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave
the gospel in a fourfold shape. According to this father, the apostles
were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge,
after their Lord’s ascension. Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and
Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.(221) Such assertions
show both ignorance and exaggeration.
Tertullian affirms that the _tradition of the apostolic churches_
guarantees the four gospels,(222) and refers his readers to the churches
of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c., for the _authentic epistles_ of
Paul.(223) What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast? In like manner
he states that bishops were appointed by the apostles, and that they
existed from that time downward, the succession originating so early.(224)
Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark’s gospel to be
read in the churches; while in another place he says that the apostle
neither “forbad nor encouraged it.”(225)
The three fathers of whom we are speaking, had neither the ability nor the
inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an
apostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was
seriously attempted either by them or by the men of their time. In its
absence, custom, accident, taste, practical needs directed the tendency of
tradition. All the rhetoric employed to throw the value of their testimony
as far back as possible, even up to or at least very near the apostle John
is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition and of
church doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these fathers for the
gospels, to their opinions being formed earlier than the composition of
the works in which they are expressed, possess no force. The ends which
the fathers in question had in view, their polemic motives, their
uncritical, inconsistent assertions, their want of sure data, detract from
their testimony. Their decisions were much more the result of pious
feeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the
conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish
certain conclusions show weakness of perception. What are the
manifestations of spiritual feeling, compared with the results of logical
reasoning? Are they more trustworthy than the latter? Certainly not, at
least in relation to questions of evidence. It is true that their
testimony has a value; but it is one proportionate to the degree of
credibility attaching to witnesses circumstanced as they were, whose
separation of canonical from uncanonical gospels, or rather their
canonizing of certain writings apart from others, and their claiming of
inspiration for the authors of the former, must be judged by the
reasonableness of the thing itself, in connection with men of their type.
The second century abounded in pseudonymous literature; and the early
fathers, as well as the churches, were occupied with other things than the
sifting of evidence connected with writings considerably prior to their
own time. The increase of such apocryphal productions, gospels, acts, and
apocalypses among the heretical parties stimulated the orthodox bishops
and churches to make an authentic collection; but it increased the
difficulties of the task.
Textual criticism has been employed to discredit the true dates of the
present gospels; and the most exaggerated descriptions have been given of
the frequent transcription of the text and its great corruption in the
second century. The process of corruption in the course of frequent
transcription has been transferred even to the first century. It is true
that the gospels at the end of that century exhibited a text which bears
marks of transcription, interpolation, and addition; but they were not the
complete works as we have them now, being then but in progress, except the
fourth. The assumption that “advanced corruption” existed in the present
text of the synoptists as early as the first century is gratuitous; unless
the process by which they were gradually built up is so called. No attempt
to get a long history behind the canonical gospels at the close of the
first century out of “advanced corruption” can be successful. It is
attested by no Christian writer of the century; and those in the first
half of the second, both heretical and orthodox, did themselves treat the
text in a manner far short of its implied infallibility. The various
readings with which they had to do, do not carry up _the canonical
gospels_ far into the first century. The transcription, enlargement, and
interpolation of the materials which make up the body of them, must not be
identified with the corruption of their _completed texts_, in order that
the latter may be relegated to an early period; for the synoptists did not
come forth full-blown, each from the hand of a single person. The old
Latin version or versions used by Tertullian and the interpreter of
Irenæus, have been pressed into the same service, but in vain.
In like manner the Curetonian Syriac version of the gospels has been put
as early as possible into the second century, though it can hardly have
been prior to the very close of it, or rather to the beginning of the
third. Here the strong assertions of apologetic writers have been freely
scattered abroad. But the evidence in favor of the authors traditionally
assigned to the gospels and some of the epistles, is still uncertain. A
wide gap intervenes between eye-witnesses of the apostles or apostolic men
that wrote the sacred books, and the earliest fathers who assert such
authorship. The traditional bridge between them is a precarious one. As
the chasm cannot be filled by adequate external evidence, we are thrown
back on the internal character of the works themselves. One thing appears
from the early corruption of the sacred records spoken of by Irenæus,
Origen, and others, that they were not regarded with the veneration
necessarily attaching to infallible documents. Their being freely handled
excludes the idea of rigid canonization. The men who first canonized them
had no certain knowledge of their authors. To them, that knowledge had
been obscured or lost; though a sagacious criticism might have arrived at
the true state of the question even in their day.
In the sub-apostolic age Ebionitism passed into Catholicism, Jewish into
Pauline Christianity, the mythical and marvelous into the dogmatic, the
traditional into the historic, the legendary into the literary. The
conflict of parties within the sphere of Christianity gave rise to
productions of various tendencies which reflected the circumstances out of
which they arose. These were accepted or rejected by the churches
according to the prevailing opinions of the persons composing the
churches. Common usage led to the authorization of some; others were
neglected. The state of the second century in its beliefs, credulity,
idiosyncracies of prominent teachers, antagonistic opinions and mystic
speculations, throws a light upon the New Testament writings and
especially on the formation of the canon, which explains their genesis.
Two things stand out most clearly, the comparatively late idea of a
_canonical_ New Testament literature; and the absence of critical
principles in determining it. The former was not entertained till the
latter part of the second century. The conception of canonicity and
inspiration attaching to New Testament books did not exist till the time
of Irenæus.
When it is asked, to whom do we owe the canon? the usual answer is, to the
Church. This is true only in a sense. The unity attributed to Christians
before Irenæus and Tertullian, consisted in their religious consciousness.
It was subjective. The idea of _the church_ was that of inward
fellowship—the fellowship of the spirit rather than an outward organism.
The preservation of the early Christian writings was owing, in the first
instance, to the congregations to whom they were sent, and the neighboring
ones with whom such congregations had friendly connection. The care of
them devolved on the most influential teachers,—on those who occupied
leading positions in the chief cities, or were most interested in
apostolic writings as a source of instruction. The Christian books were
mostly in the hands of the bishops. In process of time the canon was the
care of assemblies or councils. But it had been made before the first
general council by a few leading fathers towards the end of the second
century in different countries. The formation of a Catholic Church and of
a canon was simultaneous. The circumstances in which the collection
originated were unfavorable to the authenticity of its materials, for
tradition had been busy over them and their authors. Instead of
attributing the formation of the canon to the Church, it would be more
correct to say that the important stage in it was due to three teachers,
each working separately and in his own way, who were intent upon the
creation of a Christian society which did not appear in the apostolic
age,—a visible organization united in faith,—where the discordant opinions
of apostolic and sub-apostolic times should be finally merged. The canon
was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of the men who were
striving to form that Church, and could not get beyond the mould received
by primitive Christian literature. The first mention of a _Catholic
Church_ occurs in _The Martyrdom of Polycarp_, an epistle that cannot be
dated earlier than 160 A.D., and may perhaps be ten years later. But
though the idea is there, its established use is due to Irenæus,
Tertullian, and Cyprian. The expression has a different and narrow sense
in the seven Ignatian epistles which we believe to be supposititious and
later than Justin. Neither the three epistles published in Syriac by
Cureton, nor the seven Greek ones enumerated by Eusebius are authentic;
though Zahn has tried to prove the latter such, dating them A.D. 144. His
arguments, however, are far from convincing; and the whole story of(226)
Ignatius’s martyrdom at Rome rather than Antioch is still doubtful; for
the circumstances under which he is said to have been dragged to Rome, and
his writing letters to the churches by the way, are highly improbable. The
testimony of Malalas that Ignatius suffered at Antioch in December, 115,
in the presence of Trajan, may be quite as good as that of Chrysostom and
the Syriac monthly calendar on which Zahn relies so confidently. The fact
of the priority of the last two to Malalas is of little weight as
evidence. The main point is _the locality_ in which Ignatius suffered;
which Malalas, himself a native of Antioch and a historian, ought to have
known better than Chrysostom, because he copied preceding historians.
It is necessary to be precise on this subject because some speak of _the
church_ as though it were contemporary with the apostles themselves, or at
least with their immediate disciples; and proceed to argue that
dissensions arose soon after “within the church” rendering an appeal to
the written word necessary. When the authority of _traditional teaching_
gave way to that of _a written rule_, a change came over the condition of
_the church_. Such a view tends to mislead. There were dissensions among
the earliest Christians. The apostles themselves were by no means
unanimous. Important differences of belief divided the Jewish and Gentile
Christians from the beginning. The types of Christian truth existing from
the first gradually coalesced about the middle of the second century; when
heretics, especially the Gnostics, appeared so formidable that a catholic
church was developed. Along with this process, and as an important element
in it, the writings of apostles and apostolic men were uncritically taken
from tradition and elevated to the rank of divine documents. It was not
the rise of new dissensions “within the church” which led to the first
formation of a Christian canon; rather did the new idea of “a catholic
church” require a standard of appeal in apostolic writings, which were now
invested with an authority that did not belong to them from the beginning.
Origen was the first who took a somewhat scientific view of the relative
value belonging to the different parts of the biblical collection. His
examination of the canon was critical. Before him the leading books had
been regarded as divine and sacred, the source of doctrinal and historic
truth. From this stand-point he did not depart. With him ecclesiastical
tradition was a prevailing principle in the recognition of books belonging
of right to the New Testament collection. He was also guided by the
inspiration of the authors; a criterion arbitrary in its application, as
his own statements show. In his time, however, the collection was being
gradually enlarged; his third class. _i.e._, _the mixed_, approaching
reception into the first. But amid all the fluctuations of opinion to
which certain portions of the New Testament were subject, and the
unscientific procedure both of fathers and churches in the matter, though
councils had not met to discuss it, and vague tradition had strengthened
with time, a certain spiritual consciousness manifested itself throughout
the East and West in the matter of the canon. Tolerable unanimity ensued.
The result was a remarkable one, and calls for our gratitude,
notwithstanding its defects. Though the development was pervaded by no
critical or definite principle, it ended in a canon which has maintained
its validity for centuries.
It is sometimes said that the history of the canon should be sought from
definite catalogues, not from isolated quotations. The latter are supposed
to be of slight value, the former to be the result of deliberate judgment.
This remark is more specious than solid. In relation to the Old Testament,
the catalogues given by the fathers, as by Melito and Origen, rest solely
on the tradition of the Jews; apart from which they have no independent
authority. As none except Jerome and Origen knew Hebrew, their lists of
the Old Testament books are simply a reflection of what they learned from
others. If they deviate in practice from their masters by quoting as
Scripture other than the canonical books, they show their judgment
over-riding an external theory. The very men who give a list of the Jewish
books evince an inclination to the Christian and enlarged canon. So Origen
says, in his _Epistle to Africanus_, that “the churches use Tobit.” In
explaining the prophet Isaiah, Jerome employs Sirach vi. 6, in proof of
his view, remarking that the apocryphal work is in the Christian
catalogue.
In like manner Epiphanius, in a passage against Aetius, after referring to
the books of Scripture, adds, “as well as the books of Wisdom, _i.e._, the
Wisdom of Solomon and of Jesus, son of Sirach; finally, all the other
books of Scripture.” In another place he gives the canon of the Jews
historically, and excludes the apocryphal Greek books; here he includes
some of the latter. We also learn from Jerome that Judith was in the
number of the books reckoned up by the Nicene Council. Thus the fathers
who give catalogues of the Old Testament show the existence of a Jewish
and a Christian canon in relation to the Old Testament; the latter wider
than the former; their private opinion being more favorable to the one,
though the other was historically transmitted. In relation to the New
Testament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred books show the
view of some leading father like Augustine, along with what custom had
sanctioned. In this department no member of the synod exercised his
critical faculty; a number together would decide such questions summarily.
Bishops proceed in the track of tradition or authority.