list. He also states the doubts of many respecting the epistle to Philemon, and about 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. According to him the first epistle of Clemens Romanus was publicly read in some churches.[1]
Hilary of Poitiers (+ 368) seems to have followed Origen's catalogue. He gives twenty-two books, specifying "the epistle" of Jeremiah, and remarks that some added Tobit and Judith, making twenty-four, after the letters of the Greek alphabet. Wisdom and Sirach he cites as "prophets."[2] In the New Testament he never quotes James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, nor 2 Peter.
Rufinus (t 410) enumerates the books of the Old and New Testaments which "are believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit itself, according to the tradition of our ancestors, and have been handed down by the Churches of Christ." All the books of the Hebrew- canon and of the New Testament are specified. After the list he says, "these are they which the fathers include in the canon, by which they wished to establish the assertion of our faith." He adds that there are other books not canonical, but ecclesiastical the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. Besides the usual New Testament works, he speaks of the Shepherd of Hennas and "the Judgment of Peter" as read in the churches, but not as authoritative in matters of faith.[3]
Philastrius (t about 387) gives some account of the Scriptures and their contents in his time. The canonical Scriptures, which alone should be read in the Catholic Church, are said to be the Law and the Prophets, the gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, and seven others. He speaks of heretics who reject John s gospel and the Apocalypse, remarking also that some do not read the epistle to the Hebrews, not thinking it to be Paul s.[4] The influence of the East upon the West appears in the statements of this father upon the subject. He had several canonical lists before him; one at least from an Oriental-Arian source, which explains some assertions in his book.
Innocent I. of Rome wrote to Exsuperius (405), bishop of Toulouse, giving a list of the canonical books. Besides the Hebrew canon, he has Wisdom and Sirach, Tobit, Judith, the 2 Maccabees. The New Testament list is identical with the present. He also refers to pseudepigiaphical writings which ought not only to be re jected but condemned.[5]
A canonical list appears in three different forms bearing the names of Damasus (366-384), Gelasius I. (492-496), and Hormisdas {514-523). According to the first, the books of the Old Testament are arranged in three orders. In the first are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Psalms, Pro verbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; in the second, all the Prophets, including Baruch; in the third, Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras, two Maccabees. The New Testament books are the four gospels, fourteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and Acts, with seven catholic epistles.
That which is called the Decree of Gelasius is almost identical with the preceding. It wants Baruch and Lamentations. It has also two Esdras instead of one. In the New Testament the epistle to the Hebrews is absent.
The Hormisdas-form has the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and in the New Testament the epistle to the Hebrews.
The MSS. of these lists present some diversity; and Credner supposes the Damasus-list a fiction. But Thiel has vindicated its authenticity. It is possible that some interpolations may exist in the last two; but the first, which is the shortest, may well belong to the time of Damasus.[6]
In 419 A.D. another council at Carthage, at which Augustine was present, repeated the former list of books with a single alteration, viz., fourteen epistles of Paul (instead of thirteen).[7]
The preceding notices and catalogues show a general desire in the Western Church to settle the canon. The two most influential men of the period were Augustine and Jerome, who did not entirely agree. Both were unfitted for the critical examination of such a topic. The former was a gifted spiritual man, lacking learning and independence. Tradition dominated all his ideas about the difficult or disputed books, a tradition arbitrarily assumed. He did not enter upon the question scientifically, on the basis of certain principles, but was content to take refuge in authority the prevailing authority of leading churches. His judgment was weak, his sagacity moderate, and the absence of many sidedness hindered a critical result. Jerome, again, was learned but timid, lacking the courage to face the question fairly or fundamentally, and the in dependence necessary to its right investigation. Belonging as he did to both churches, he recommended the practice of the one to the other. He, too, was chiefly influenced by tradition, by Jewish teachers in respect to the Old Testament, and by general custom as to the New. Compared with the Eastern Church, the Western accepted a wider canon of the Old Testament, taking some books into the class of the canonical which the former put among those "to be read." In regard to the New Testament, all the Catholic epistles and even the Apocalypse were received. The African churches and councils generally adopted this larger canon, which resulted from the fact of the old Latin versions of the Bible current in Africa being daughters of the Septuagint. If the Latins apparently looked upon the Greek as the original itself, the apocryphal books would soon get rank with the canonical. Still the more learned fathers, Jerome, Rufinus, and others, favoured the Hebrew canon in distinguishing between canonical and ecclesiastical books. The influence of the Eastern upon the Western Church is still visible, though it could not extinguish the prevailing desire to include the disputed books. The Greek view was to receive nothing which had not apparently a good attestation of divine origin and apostolic authority; the Latin was to exclude nothing hallowed by descent and proved by custom. The former Church looked more to the sources of doctrine; the latter to those of edification. The one desired to contract those sources, so as not to be too rich; the other to enlarge the springs of edification, not to be too poor. Neither had the proper resources for the work, nor a right perception of the way in which it should be set about; and therefore they were not fortunate in their conclusions, differing in regard to points which affect the foundation of a satisfactory solution.
Notwithstanding the numerous endeavours both in the East and West to settle the canon during the 4th and 5th centuries, it was not finally closed. The doubts of individuals were still expressed, and succeeding ages testify to the want of universal agreement respecting several books. The question, however, was practically determined. No material change occurred again in the absolute rejection or admission of books. With some fluctuations, the canon remained very much as it was in the 4th and 5th centuries. Tradition had shaped and established its condition. General usage gave it a permanency which it was not easy to disturb. The history is mainly an objective one. Uncritical at its commencement, it was equally so in the two centuries which have just been considered.
be traced with much exactness. The Peshito version had only the Hebrew canonical books at first; the apocryphal were added afterwards. In the New Testament it wanted four of the catholic epistles and the Apocalypse. Ephrem (378) uses all the books in our canon, the apocryphal as well as the canonical The former are cited by him in the same way as the latter. The Syrian version made by Polycarp at the request of Philoxenus of Mabug, had the four catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito; and the Charklean recension of it probably had the Apocalypse also, if that which was published by De Dieu at Leyden belongs to it. Junilius, though an African bishop (about 550), says that he got his knowledge from a Persian of the name of Paulus, who received his education in the school of Nisibis. He may, therefore, be considered a witness of the opinions of the Syrian church at the beginning of the
6th century. Dividing the biblical books into those of
- ↑ See Onomastica Sacra; Comment, in Ep. ad Philem.; De Viris illustr.
- ↑ Prolog, in Psalm.; Opp. eel. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.
- ↑ Expos, in Symbol. Apostol., pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.
- ↑ De Howes, chs. 60 and 61, in Gallandi, vii. pp. 424, 425.
- ↑ Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.
- ↑ Credner's Zur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 151, &c. , and Thiel's Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum Genuinæ, tom. i.
- ↑ Mansi, iv. p. 430.
