CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

2. The Formation of the Canonin the 2nd Century. —

The very earliest reading of NT books in tlie churches must have occurred in the case of epistles addressed to particular churches, which of course were read in those churches;nextcomethecircularletter3(e.(?.Eph.,lPeter), which were passed round a group of churches. Still this involved no repeated liturgical use of these writings as in a church lectionary. During the obscure period of the sub-Apostolic age we have no indication of the use of epistles in church worship. Clement of Rome assumed that the church at Corinth was acquainted with 1 Corinthians, although he was writing nearly 40 years after St. Paul had sent that Epistle to the church, and a new generation had arisen in the Interval; but there is no proof or probabiUty that it was regularly read at the services. The earliest references to any such reading point to the Synoptic Gospels as alone having this place of honour, together with the OT prophets. This was the case in the worship described by Justin Martyr (1 Apol. Ixvii.). A little later Justin's disciple Tatian prepared his Harmony (Dia-tessaron) for use in the church at Edessa. This was constructed out of all four Gospels; i.e. it included John, a Gospel probably known to Justin, though not included in his Memoirs of the Apostles. As yet no epistles are seen in the place of honour of church reading side by side with OT Scriptures. But long before this a collection had been made by Marcion (c. a.d. 140) in his effort to reform the Church by recalling attention to the PauUne teaching which had fallen into neglect. Marcion's Canon consisted of a mutilated Gospel of St. Luke and 10 Epistles of St. Paul (the 3 Pastoral Epistles being omitted). Although other early Church writers evidently allude to several of the Epistles (e.g. Clemens Rom., Ignatius, Polycarp, 'Barnabas'), that is only by way of individual citation, without any hint that they are used in a collection or treated as authoritative Scripture. Marcion is the earUest who is known to have honoured any of the Epistles in this way. But when we come to Irenaeus (180) we seem to be in another world. Irenseus cites as authori-tative most of the books of the Christian Scriptures, though he does not appear to have known Hebrews. We now have a NT side by side with the OT ; or at all events we have Christian books appealed to as authoritative Scripture, just as in the previous generation the LXX was appealed to as authoritative Scripture. Here is evidence of a double advance: (1) in the addition of the Epistles to the Gospels as a collection, (2) in the enhancement of the value of all these books for the settlement of questions of doctrine.

This is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the Church. And yet history is absolutely silent as to how, when, where, and by whom it was brought about. Nothing is more amazing in the history of the Christian Church than the absence of all extant contemporary references to so great a movement. The Sp years from Justin Martyr, who knew only a collection of 3 Gospels as specially authoritative, and that simply as records of the life and teaching of Christ, to Irenaius, with his frequent appeals to the Epistles as well as the Gospels, saw the birth of a NT Canon, but left no record of so great an event. Irenasus, though bishop of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, was in close communication with Asia Minor where he had been brought up, and Prof. Harnaok con-jectures that bishops of Asia Minor in agreement with the Church at Rome deliberately drew up and settled the Canon, although we have no historical record of so significant an event. It may be, however, that Irenffius was himself a pioneer in a movement the necessity of which was recognized as by common consent. Some authoritative standard of appeal was wanted to save the essence of Christian teaching from being engulfed in the speculations of Gnosticism. The Gospels were not sufficient for this purpose, because they were

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

accepted by the Gnostics, who, however, interpreted them allegorically. What was needed was a standard of doctrinal truth, and that was found in the Epistles.

Near this time we have the earliest known Canon after that of Marcion, the most ancient extant list of NT books in the Catholic Church. This is named the ' Muratorian Fragment,' after its discoverer Mura-tori, who found it in a 7th or 8th cent, monk's common-place book in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and pubUshed it in 1740. The fragment Is a mutilated extract of a list of NT books made at Rome probably before the end of the 2nd cent., since the author refers to the episcopate of Pius as recent {jiuperrime iemp&ribus noslris), and Pius i., who died in a.d. 157, is the only bishop of Rome of that name in the early age to which unquestionably, as internal evidence indicates, the original composition must be assigned. The fragment begins in the "middle of a sentence which appears to allude to St. Peter's connexion with our Second Gospel, and goes on to mention Luke as the Third Gospel and John as the Fourth. Therefore it evidently acknowledged the 4 Gospels. Then it has Acts, which it ascribes to Luke, and it acknowledges 13 Epistles of Paul — admitting the Pastorals, but excluding Hebrews, though it subse-quently refers to 'an Epistle to the Laodiceans,' and another ' to the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul,' as well as 'many others' which are not received in the CathoUc Church 'because gall ought not to be mixed with honey.' Further, this Canon includes Jude, 2 Epistles of John, and the Apocalypse, which it ascribes to John. It also has the Book of Wisdom, which it says was 'written by the friends of Solomon in his honour,' and the Apocalypse of Peter, although acknowl-edging that there is a minority which rejects the latter work, for we read 'we receive moreover the Apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of our body will not have read in the church.' This indicates that the author's church as a whole acknowledges the Apocalypse of Peter, and that he associates himself with the majority of his brethren in so doing, whUe he candidly admits that there are some dissentients. Lastly, the Canon admits Hermas for private reading, but not for use in the church services. We have here, then, most of our NT books ; but, on the one hand, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, James, and one of the 3 Epistles of John are not mentioned. They are not named to be excluded, like the forged works referred to above; possibly the author did not know of their existence. At all events he did not find them used in his church. On the other hand. Wisdom, without question, and the Apocalypse of Peter, though rejected by some, are included in this canon, and Hermas is added for private reading.

Passing on to the commencement of the 3rd cent., we come upon another anonymous writing, an anti-gambling tract entitled 'Concerning dice-players' (de Aleatoribus), which Prof. Harnack attributes to Victor of Rome (a.d. 200-230). In this tract the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache are both quoted as 'Scripture.' The author refers to three divisions of Scripture: (1) Prophetic writings — the OT Prophets, the Apocalypse, Hermas; (2) the Gospels; (3) the Apostolic Writings — Paul, 1 John, Hebrews.

Neither of these Canons can be regarded as authori-tative either ecclesiastically or scientifically, since we are Ignorant of their sources. But they both indicate a crystallizing process, in the Church at Rome about the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd centuries, that was tending towards our NT, though with some curious variations. The writings of the Fathers of this period agree in the main With Irenaeus in their citations from most of the NT books as authoritative — a condition very different from that of Justin Martyr half a century earlier. Two influences may be recognized as bringing this result about: (1) use in churches at public worship, (2) authoritative appeals against heresy — especially Gnosticism. It was necessary to settle what books

114