[Footnote 74: It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on an unattainable height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora.]

[Footnote 75: Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis. II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV.

23. 11.]

[Footnote 76: Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one pa.s.sage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) "Legimus omnem scripturam aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."]

[Footnote 77: The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like pa.s.sages).

It follows from the Epistle of Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he a.s.sumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with "[Greek: eidotes]" (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows himself to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great ma.s.s of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were used and honoured.]

[Footnote 78: It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of Peter among the [Greek: apomnemoneumata]; see Texte u. Unters. IX. 2.]

[Footnote 79: See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p.

471 ff. Zahn (Tatian's Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.]

[Footnote 80: Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and used it like the other Gospels.]

[Footnote 81: The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian antiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)]

[Footnote 82: Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5.]

[Footnote 83: In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls G.o.d the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4).]

[Footnote 84: Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the [Greek: akribeia ton palaion biblion], and of [Greek: ta biblia tes palaias diathekes], we may a.s.sume that he knows [Greek: ta biblia tes kaines diathekes].]

[Footnote 85: We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. In connection with this, however, it is an important circ.u.mstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: [Greek: hoi apo ton haireseon tas pros Timotheon athetousin epistolas]). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century.]

[Footnote 86: Yet see the pa.s.sage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the "receptior," de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: "Quodsi quae Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi t.i.tulo Pauli de suo c.u.mulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." The hypothesis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter.

Irenaeus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.]

[Footnote 87: Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenaeus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemaeus whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian "de idololatria" to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for solving all questions.]

[Footnote 88: I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be a.s.signed to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc.

See my article "Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften" in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch.

III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2; Schmiedel, Art. "Kanon" in Ersch. u. Gruber's Encykl., 2 Section, Vol.

x.x.xII. p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The following sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without influence on me.]

[Footnote 89: The use of the word "canon" as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word "canon"

was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The name "New Testament" (books of the New Testament) is first found in Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullian's p. 47 f. The most common name is "Holy Scriptures." In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as [Greek: to euangelion kai ho apostolos] (evangelicae et apostolicae litterae); see Tertullian, de bapt. 15: "tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris." The name "writings of the Lord" is also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the media of G.o.d's revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as "Apostolic memoirs" already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned new speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with the old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also called "the writings of the Church" as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the Church which selected these writings.]

[Footnote 90: Here there is a distinction between Irenaeus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenaeus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenaeus' efforts as successful.]

[Footnote 91: The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H.

E. IV. 23. 12).]

[Footnote 92: That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canon text with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circ.u.mstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity, but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the "Teaching of the Apostles" p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp, IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed into a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle "de virginitate" into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christian literature have created for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition.

Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma "genuine or spurious", and can prove neither.]

[Footnote 93: As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.]

[Footnote 94: People were compelled by internal and external evidence (recognition of their apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept the epistles of Paul. But, from the Catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, would have been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. The actual novelty was the bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not deceptive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, which some a.s.sociated with an Epistle of Peter and an Epistle of John, others with an Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, and the like. There were now (1) writings of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as [Greek: apomnemoneumata] of definite Apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, which historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explanation of "difficult" pa.s.sages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by the compilation of the Pastoral ones, doc.u.ments which "in ordinatione ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae erant." The Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In this book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the Apostles found its place in the canon _faute de mieux_ is clear from the extravagant terms, not at all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. It is inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and missionary acts of all the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian fragment and in Irenaeus and Tertullian. There it is called "acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc." Irenaeus says (III. 14. 1): "Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit _Apostolorum_, maxime autem Pauli," and makes use of the book to prove the subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated pa.s.sages, de praescr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20; IV. 2-5; V. 1-3, Tertullian made a still more extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Antimarcionite book in the canon. One can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against Paul as the Apostle of the heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no one who fails to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise Paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the [Greek: didache ton dodeka apostolon] was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a _book_ which contained that authority was required in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called Luke.

"Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis inst.i.tutum est hoc corpus probare non habent." But the greater part of the heretics remained obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the later Manicheans recognised the Acts of the Apostles. To some extent they replied by setting up other histories of Apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of the Ebionites and even by the Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, a.s.serts its right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement of Alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the [Greek: kerugma Petrou], but Clement has no New Testament at all in the strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book stood where it is to-day, i.e., immediately after the Gospels (see Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of Catholic Epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the Acts of the Apostles, and its place was never really settled. Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle of Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives about the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles, prophets, and teachers. But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the Muratorian Fragment, nor do we yet find the group there a.s.sociated with the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter form the unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. But, all the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different though similar fashion by Irenaeus and again altered by Tertullian. The genuine Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral ones, which in their way are also "Catholic." That is the character of the "Catholic" New Testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in Irenaeus and Tertullian). In speaking above of the Acts of the Apostles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively to the canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable.]

[Footnote 95: There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. In the one case the writings that had long been read in the Church formed the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical; whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings. .h.i.therto read in the Church was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished.]

[Footnote 96: At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the name New Testament is not yet found in Irenaeus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters. z. altchristl. Lit. Gesch.

Bd. VI. 2.]

[Footnote 97: See above, p. 40, note 2.]

[Footnote 98: We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenaeus as to the difficulties he found in many pa.s.sages of the Pauline Epistles, which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as Marcion, Tatian, and theologians of the school of Valentinus. The difficulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which followed. (See, e.g., Method, Conviv. Orat. III. 1, 2.)]

[Footnote 99: Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq.

Sacr. I. p. 150.)]

[Footnote 100: See Overbeck, "Ueber die Auffa.s.sung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien bei den Kirchenvatern," 1877, p. 8.]

[Footnote 101: See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The expression is also frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. praef. 4.]

[Footnote 102: The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth designates her own words as the words of G.o.d (1 Clem. LIX. 1) and therefore requires obedience "[Greek: tois huph' hemon gegrammenois dia tou hagiou pneumatos]" (LXIII. 2).]

[Footnote 103: Tertull. de exhort. 4: "Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli ... Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiae et efficacia virtutum doc.u.mentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri."

Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: [Greek: Hekastos idion echei charisma apo theou, ho men houtos, ho de houtos, hoi apostoloi de en pasi pepleromenoi]; Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3: [Greek: hemeis kai ton Petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon]. The success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with complete corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the a.s.sumption that they were inspired and by the requirement of an "expositio legitima."]

[Footnote 104: See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun.

15, de pudic. 12. Sufficiency is above all included in the concept "inspiration" (see for ex. Tertull., de monog. 4: "Negat scriptura quod non notat"), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see Iren., IV. 28. 3. "Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum").]

[Footnote 105: The direct designation "prophets" was, however, as a rule, avoided. The conflict with Montanism made it expedient to refrain from this name; but see Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 24: "Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetae."]

[Footnote 106: Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the pa.s.sage about the Shepherd of Hermas.]

[Footnote 107: This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. Their fate was long undecided in the West; but it was very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in the Church, because their authors had not that fulness of the Spirit which belongs to the Apostles alone.]

[Footnote 108: The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to Irenaeus and Tertullian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written by the Apostles. On the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can be got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts, Kerygma, and Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. But these three witnesses agree (see also App.

Const.i.t. VI. 16) that the apostolic _regula fidei_ is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to Tertullian, the apostolic writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone possesses the apostolic _regula_ (de praescr. 37 ff.). The _regula_ of course does not legitimise those writings, but only proves that they are authentic and do not belong to the heretics. These witnesses also agree that a Christian writing has no claim to be received into the canon merely on account of its prophetic form. On looking at the matter more closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to Montanism, led to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by the Spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word.]

[Footnote 109: The fragment of Serapion's letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done.]

[Footnote 110: See my essay "Theophilus v. Antiochien und das N. T." in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. XI. p. 1 ff.]

[Footnote 111: The most important pa.s.sages are Autol. II. 9. 22: [Greek: hothen didaskousin hemas hai hagiai graphai kai pantes hoi pneumatophoroi, ex hon Ioannaes legei k.t.l.] (follows John I. 1) III.

12: [Greek: kai peri dikaiosunes, hes ho nomos eireken, akoloutha heurisketai kai ta ton propheton kai ton euangelion echein, dia to tous pantas pneumatophorous heni pneumati theou lelalekenai]; III. 13: [Greek: ho hagios logos--he euangelios phone].; III. 14: [Greek: esaias--to de euangelion--ho theios logos]. The latter formula is not a quotation of Epistles of Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the Old Testament and given in Pauline form. It is specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions, written in Syria and belonging to the second half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to the Old Testament it has no authority but the "Gospel."]

[Footnote 112: There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of Clement. The information given by Volkmar in Credner's Gesch. d. N. Tlichen Kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The s.p.a.ce at the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at least refer to some important pa.s.sages which I have collected. Strom. I. ---- 28, 100; II. ---- 22, 28, 29; III.,---- 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; IV. ---- 2, 91, 97, 105, 130, 133, 134, 138, 159; V. ---- 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; VI. ---- 42,44, 54, 59, 61, 66--68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 161, 164; VII. ---- 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107. As to the estimate of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome as well as of the Shepherd, in Clement, see the Prolegg.

to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost.]

[Footnote 113: According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words [Greek: entheos]; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See Paed. I. 6. 36, also -- 51.]

[Footnote 114: In the Paed. the Gospels are regularly called [Greek: he graphe] but this is seldom the case with the Epistles. The word "Apostle" is used in quoting these.]