Of the history of Susanna he ventures to say that the Jews withdrew it on purpose from the people.[1] He seems to argue in favour of books used and read in the churches, though they may be put out of the canon by the Jews. As divine Providence had preserved the sacred Scriptures, no alteration should be made in the ecclesiastical tradition respecting books sanctioned by., the churches though they
be external to the Hebrew canon.
The New Testament Canon in the first three Centuries.
The first Christians relied on the Old Testament as their chief religious book. To them it was of divine origin and authority The New Testament writings came into gra dual use by the side of the older Jewish documents, accord ing to the times in which they appeared and the reputed names of the authors.
When Marcion came from Pontus to Rome (144 A.D.), he brought with him a Scripture-collection consisting of ten Pauline epistles. Those addressed to Timothy and Titus, with the epistle to the Hebrews, "were not in it. 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 ths 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.[2] It is inferred from statements in Origen and Jerome that he had a gospel of his own some what like Luke s, but extra-canonical. His son Isidore and succeeding disciples used Matthew s gospel. Jerome says that Marcion and Basilides denied the Pauline author ship of the epistle to the Hebrews and the pastoral ones.[3] It is also doubtful whether Yalentinus s (140-1 6G) 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 ; and Henrici has not proved his position that he used John s gospel. But h;s followers, including Ptolemy (180 A.D.) and Heracleon (185-200), quote the gospels and other portions of the New Testament. From Hippolytus s account of the Ophites, Peratag, and Sethians, we infer that the Christian writings were much employed by them. An apocryphal work they rarely cite. More than 160 citations from the New Testament have been gathered out of their writings.[4]We may admit that these Ophites and Peratae were of early origin, the former being the oldest known of the Gnostic parties ; but there is no proof that the acquaint ance with the New Testament which Hippolytus attributes to them belongs to the first rather than the second half of the 2d century. The early existence of the sect does not show an early citation of the Christian books by it, especi ally 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 favoured by no mention of them occurring in the " Adversus omnes Hie- reses " usually appended to Tertullian s Prcescriptiones llcereticorum, and by Irenasus s derivation of their heresy from that of Yalentinus. The latter father does not even speak of the Peratae. Clement of Alexandria is the first who alludes to them. The early heretics were desirous of confirming their peculiar opinions by the writings current among catholic Christians, so that the formation of a canon by them began soon after the commencement of the 2d century, and continued till the end of it, contemporane ously with the development of a catholic church and its necessary adjunct a catholic canon.
No New Testament canon, except a partial and unautho- ritative one, existed till the latter half of the 2d century, that is, till the idea of a catholic church began to be enter tained. The Ebionites or Jewish Christians had their favourite gospels and Acts. The gospel of Matthew was highly prized by them, existing as it did in various recen sions. Other documents, such as the Revelation of John, and the Preaching of Peter, (a Jewish-Christian history sub sequently re-written and employed in the Clementine Re cognitions and Homilies) were also in esteem. Even so late as 170-175, Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, used the gospel according to the Hebrews and despised Paul s writings, in conformity with the leading principle of the party to which he belonged, viz., the identity of Jesus s words with the Old Testament. The Clementine Homilies (161-180) used the four canonical gospels, even the fourth, which they assign 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 2d century. Their reverence for the Law and the Prophets hindered another canon. Among the Gentile Christians the forma tion 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 apostolic fathers quote from the Old Testament, to them an inspired and sacred thing. They have scarcely any express cita tions from the New Testament. Allusions occur, especially to the epistles. The letter of Clement to the Corinthians (about 120) does not use written gospels, though it presupposes an acquaintance with the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Hebrews. Where " Scripture is cited, or the expression "it is written" occurs, the Old Testament is meant.
Hermas (about 130) seems to have used the epistles to the Ephesians- and Hebrews, those of James and 1 Peter, perhaps, too, the Acts; but there is great uncertainty about the matter, and he lias no express 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.
Barnabas about 119) has but one quotation from the New Testament, if, indeed, it be such. Apparently, Matthew xx. 16 is introduced by "it is written," showing that the gospel was con sidered Scripture. This is the earliest trace of canonical authority, being transferred from the Old Testament to Christian writings.
As far as we can judge from Eusebius s account of Papias[5] (+ 163), that writer knew nothing of a New Testament canon. He speaks of Matthew and Mark ; but whether he had their present gospels is uncertain. According to Andreas of Ca^sarea he was acquainted with the Apocalypse of John, while Eusebius testifies to his knowledge of 1 Peter and 1 John. But he seems to have had no conception of canonical authority attaching to any part of the New Testament.
Traces of later ideas about the canonicity of the New Testament appear in the shorter Greek recension of the seven Ignatian epistles (about 175). There "the Gospel" and " the Epistles" are recog nized as the constituents of the book.[6] The writer also used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for there is a quotation from it in the epistle to the Smyrnians.[7] The second part of the collection seems to have wanted the epistle to the Ephesians. 8
Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) knew some of the synoptic gospels - the first and third. The evidence of his acquaintance with Mark s is but small. His knowledge of the fourth is denied by many, and zealously defended by others. Thoma finds proof that Justin used
- ↑ Opp., ed. Delarue, vol. i. p. 12.
- ↑ Davidson s Introduction to the Study of the 3". Testam., vol. ii. p, 383.
- ↑ Explanatio in Episi. ad Titum, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.
- ↑ See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewiu s edition.
- ↑ Hist. Eccles., iii. 39.
- ↑ Epist. ad Philadelph., ch. 5. See Hefele s note on the passage The other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in read ing and meaning to be adduced here.
- ↑ Chapter iii. 8 To the Ephesians, chapter zii.
