it freely as a text-book of gnosis, without recognizing it as the his torical work of an apostle.[1] It is pretty certain that he employed an extra-canonical gospel, perhaps the so-called gospel of the Hebrews. He had also the older Acts of Pilate. Paul s epistles nre never mentioned, though he doubtless knew them. Having little sympathy with Paulinism he attached his belief to the primi tive 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. Ho was merely on the threshold of a divine canon made up of primitive Christian writings, attaching no exclusive sanctity to those he used, because they were not to him the only source of doc trine. Even of the Apocalypse he says, "A man among us named John, &c. , wrote it."[2] 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. Others he used freely, not looking upon any as inspired. Though lessons out of the 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,[3] 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), who wrote an address to the Greeks, quotes the beginning of John s gospel ; and his Diatcssaron or Harmony probably included selections from the four canonical ones : but too little is known of it to enable us to speak with certainty. Doubtless he was acquainted with Paul s writings, as he quotes statements contained in them. He seems, however, to have rejected several of his epistles, probably 1 and 2 Timothy.[4]
In Poly carp s epistle (150-1(56) there are reminiscences of the synoptic gospels ; and most of Paul s epistles as well as 1 Peter were used by the writer. But the idea of canonical authority, or a peculiar inspiration belonging to these writings, is absent.
Athenagoras of Athens wrote an apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius (176). In it he uses written and unwritten tradition, testing all by the Old Testament, which was his only authorita tive canon. He makes no reference to the Christian documents, but adduces words of Jesus with the verb "he says." His treatise on the resurrection appeals to a passage in one of Paul s epistles.[5]
The author of the epistle to Diognetus (about 200) 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.
Dionysius of Corinth (170) complains of the falsification of his writings, but consoles himself with the fact that the same is done to tlie "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.[6] If such be the meaning, the col lection is put on a par with the Old Testament, and regarded as inspired. But Hegesippus still made a distinction between "the divine writings" (the Old Testament) and "the words of the Lord;"[7] showing that Holy Scripture was nothing else, in his opinion, than the Jewish books. He also used the gospel of the Hebrews and Jewish tradition.[8]
The letter of the churches at Vienne and Lyons (177) 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."[9] 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. Accord ingly, the two apostles, Peter and Paul, are mentioned together.
Theophilus of Antioch (180) was familiar with the gospels end most of Paul s epistles, as also the Apocalypse. He puts the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures on the same level, because they proceeded from men who had the same spirit. Passages are cited from Paul as "the divine word."[10]
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.[11] 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. The Old Testa
ment 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 fol
lowed for the most part, afc 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 (TO euayye Atov) and the apostle (6 aTrocr-
roXos). 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 birth
place may have been Asia Minor, like Marcion s ; but it
may have grown about the same time in Asia Minor, Alex
andria, and Western Africa. At all events, Irenaeus, Cle
ment of Alexandria, and Tertullian speak ,of its two parts ;
and the three agree in recognizing its existence.
Irenneus 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 Hennas. The last he calls a "Scrip ture " because it was prophetic.[12] The epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, James s, 2 Peter, and 3 John he ignored.
Clement s collection was more extended than Irenreus s. 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 recognizes no distinc tion between the New Testament writings except by the more fre quent use of those generally received, and the degree of importance attached to them. Yet Barnabas is cited as an apostle.[13] So is the Roman Clement.[14] The Shepherd of Hermas is spoken of as divine.[15] Thus the line of the Homologoumena is not marked oil even to the. same extent as in Irenneus, and is seen but obscurely.
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 s epistle, 2 Peter, and 3 John. He used the Shepherd, but thought little of it, with the Montanists in general.[16]
These three fathers did not fix the cauon 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, at least in practice.
The canon of Muratori is a fragmentary list which was made towards the end of the 2d century (170). Its birthplace is un certain, 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, and James are not named. The epistle "to the Laodiceans" is probably that to the Ephesians, which had this superscription in Murcion s canon ; and that "to the Alexandrians" seems to be the epistle to the Hebrews. 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.r>. The epistle to the Hebrews was rejected in the "West, and may have been thought a supposititious work in the interests of Paulism with some reason, because of its internal character. 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. It is
- ↑ See Zeitschrift filr wissenschaftliche. Theologie, 1875, p. 490, et seq.
- ↑ Dialogus, part ii. p. 315, ed. Tbirlby. Comp. on Justin, Tjeenk-Willink s Justinus Martyr in zijne Verhoudiny lot Pauhis
- ↑ Apolog. i. p. 97, ed. Thirl by.
- ↑ Hieronymi Procem. in Epist. ad Titum.
- ↑ Chapter xviii
- ↑ Euseb. II. E., iv. 23.
- ↑ Ibid., iv. 22.
- ↑ Photii BMiotheca, cod. 232.
- ↑ Euseb. H.E., v. ], p. 144, ed. Briglu.
- ↑ Ottos &y(j?. Ad Autolycum, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed. Migne.
- ↑ See Davidson s Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 508, &c.
- ↑ Advers. I/ceres., iv. 20, 2.
- ↑ Stromata, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne.
- ↑ Ibid., iv. 17, p. 1312.
- ↑ Ibid., i. 29, p. 928.
- ↑ De Pudidtia, cap. 10.
