•

ROBERT

0
 THE FORMATION OF
THE NEW TEST AMENT

Religion

Editor
THE REV. PROFESSOR E. 0. JAMES
M.A. , D.Litt., Ph.D., F.S.A., Hon.D.D.
Formerly Professor of the History and Philosophy
of R eligion in the University of London
 BS
2320 The Formation of
d
G78 the New Testament
J91J
ROBERT M . GRANT
111
Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity
at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago

HUTCHINSON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

LONDON
HUTCHINSON & CO. (Publishers) LTD
178- 202 Great Portland Street, London, WI

London Melbourne Sydney

Auckland Bombay Toronto
Johannesburg New York

* 0

First published 1965

<C Robert M. Grant 1965

This book has been set in Times New Roman,
printed in Great Britain on Antique Wove paper
by The Anchor Press, Ltd., and bound by Wm.
Brendon & Son Ltd. , both of Tiptree, Essex.

-
 Contents

Preface 7
I The scriptures of the earliest Church 13
II The Old Testament canon in Judaism and
Christianity 32
m Books and traditions 52
IV The witness of the Apostolic Fathers: Jewish
Christianity 62
V The witness of the Apostolic Fathers: Hellenistic-
Jewish Christianity 77
VI The witness of the Apostolic Fathers: Hellenistic
Christianity 88
VII The problem of the New Testament Apocrypha 109

VIII The New Testament books in Gnostic circles 121

IX The New Testament books in the Greek
Apologists 131
X The New Testament books at the end of the
second century 148
XI Alexandria and the New Testament 162
XII The New Testament of the early Church Fathers 176
XIII The formation of the New Testament 181
Select bibliography 189
Index 193
 Preface

The New Testament is the basic collection of the books of

the Christian Church. Its contents, unlike those of the Old
Testament, were produced within the span of a single
century, under the auspices of disciples of Jesus or their
immediate successors. The collection is also unlike the Koran
in that it contains not a word written by the founder of the
community, though bis spoken words are recorded by evan-
gelists and apostles and reflected in almost all the documents.
The New Testament is thus the product of tradition, and it
contains the records of the life, teaching, death, and resur-
rection of Jesus and the earliest, classical responses to this
many-faceted event. The various books were created within
the Christian community and gradually came to be accepted
by almost all the individual churches which constituted the
Church.
When we speak of the formation of the New Testament
we refer to the gradual process in the course of which the
various books came to be collected and circulated and finally
to be recognized as making up the authoritative record of
the apostolic witness to Christ. In essence, this process was
the work of Christians in the second century. Debates over
the authority of some of the documents sporadically arose
in later periods, but the main outlines of the New Testament
became clear to most Christians by abou~ the year 200.
Not all Christians used the same terminology or defini-
tions, but in general the authoritative New Testament books
8 PREFACE

were those which (1) were, and had been, accepted by

orthodox churches and church writers, (2) were regarded
as written by apostles or disciples of apostles and, (3) could,
like the Old Testament books, be called inspired 'scripture'.
There is a definite correlation between the development of
the idea of canonicity and emphasis on the Church as
Catholic and apostolic.
The New Testament was thus created by the Church in
the sense that Christians chose the books which, in their
view, adequately represented the life and thought of the
primitive community. Obviously this view was not shared
by those who produced most of the apocryphal gospels,
epistles, acts, and apocalypses which more orthodox
Christian leaders rejected, and often we tend to suppose
that the less orthodox were occupying themselves with
creative fiction. This was certainly not what they intended
to produce. They generally believed that they had inherited
a tradition which was not available to all, and there are
passages in the synoptic gospels (especially in Mark 4:11,
33-34) which suggest that there was such a tradition. Some
of them, like Marcion, believed that the earliest apostles
had distorted the original tradition in order to make it
relevant to their earliest hearers. As Christian leaders defined
and defended the New Testament books they insisted that
the authentic tradition contained in them was comprehen-
sible to all and available for all. Even though they sometimes
had to engage in highly subtle exegetical manreuvres in
support of this contention, they insisted that the gospel was
universal in scope and they were often suspicious not only
of Gnostic documents but also of the more esoteric New
Testament writings such as Revelation (in the East) and
Hebrews (in the West). The very difficulty of these books
may account for the persistent doubts about their canonical
character.
 PREFACE 9
The New Testament is not the product, however, of official
assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It
reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole
religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographi-
cal, and even -ideological differences, could finally be united
in accepting these twenty-seven diverse documents as ex-
pressing the meaning of God's revelation-in Jesus Christ
and to bis Church.
One may wonder why the formation of the New Testa-
ment needs to be examined again. This question can be
raised on two counts. ( 1) The early history of The New Testa-
ment canon was exhaustively investigated during the late
nineteenth century and the early twentieth. Why do it
again? (2) The New Testament canons of various churches
are already in existence, and it is most unlikely that they
will ever be altered.
The first question is easier to answer than the second, and
the answer is twofold. (a) We now possess some new
materials, chiefly from Egypt (second-century Christian
papyri; later Gnostic books which have earlier sources),
which provide new light on the formation of the New
Testament. (b) The continuing study of early Christian life
and literature has tended to discredit older theories of
straight-line development and also to lay more emphasis on
the close relation between Gnosticism and more orthodox
Christianity in the second century. This means that the
history of the canon must be viewed from a new perspective.
The second question is related to modern theological con-
cerns which, in turn, have been influenced by historical con-
siderations. (a) Tradition as such is not valued in the modern
world as highly as it was in previous times. The fact of a
past decision remains; its significance often becomes relative
because of our search for the factors which motivated it and
our desire to look behind the decision and reassess its
10 PREFACE

causes and its importance. (b) Continuing study of tradition

suggests that it would be better to speak of 'traditions',
usually congruent but by no means identical. Throughout
church history some New Testament books have been valued
more highly than others, under varying circumstances. By
reviewing the process of canonization we become able, using
historical imagination, to see how and why various books
were regarded as authoritative- llnd thus to free ourselves
from the notion that all scriptures are equal. (c) This is not
to say that our valuation will necessarily be the same as
that of any early Christian writer. It is simply to point to
the freedom with which, in many instances, the books (or
the traditions underlying them) were used and by analogy to
suggest that modern readers possess a similar freedom.
It is significant that as these books came to be generally
accepted, there was also a crystallization of the Church's
organization and of its doctrines. To speak of the creation
or formation of the Catholic Church in the second century
would be an exaggeration. The ingredients of the Catholic
Church were present from the beginning, even though no
New Testament writer used the term or, for that matter,
viewed doctrine or organization in just the same way as did
the second-century theologians and administrators. But
while we should insist upon the elements of continuity within
the Christian tradition and traditions, it would be quite
wrong to suggest that the faith of Irenaeus, for example,
was identical with that of the New Testament writers as a
group or that of any particular one of them. The different
circumstances required the use of different accents and
emphases.
While we can view the New Testament books as contain-
ing the classical responses of the apostolic age (and the sub-
apostolic age) to Christ, the same approach can be made to
the Church for and in which these books were written, and
 PREFACE II

in the early history of the Church's canon we can see both

continuity and adaptation. The first century or century and a
half of the Church's life are not marked by fixity, by precise-
ness in definjtion, or even by universal agreement about
organization . .
To examine the early history of the New Testament canon
means to investigate the early history of the life of the
Church-and to see that flexibility, conflict, and (to a remark-
able extent) diversity was the consequence (or perhaps a
cause) of being alive.
The gradual development of the canon, in our view, was
primarily the achievement of gentile Christianity, although
of course there would have been no New Testament if an
Old Testament had not already existed. Among the earliest
Christians there was no New Testament; their Bible con-
sisted of the Old Testament alone. One of the principal
problems which the Church bad to confront during the
second century was the relation between this Bible and the
Christian gospel expressed in oral traditions and in writings.
Gentile Christians insisted upon the superiority of the gospel
to the predictions and prefigurations which they found in
the Old Testament, and this insistence finally led to the
formation of the New Testa1nent as a collection of books
which could be viewed as 'scripture'.
Our study could obviously not be undertaken apart from
the advances made during the last century of biblical and
patristic research. For the Jate nineteenth century and the
early twentieth the names of Harnack and Zahn remain
crucially important. Among modern scholars we may men-
tion especially J. Ruwet on Clement and Origen, W. C.
van Unnik on Gnostic writings (and non-Gnostic writings
as well), and H. Koester on the Apostolic Fathers.
 PREFACE II

in the early history of the Church's canon we can see both

continuity and adaptation. The first century or century and a
half of the Church's life are not marked by fixity, by precise-
ness in definition, or even by universal agreement about
organization . .
To examine the early history of the New Testament canon
means to investigate the early history of the life of the
Church- and to see that flexibility, conflict, and (to a remark-
able extent) diversity was the consequence (or perhaps a
cause) of being alive.
The gradual development of the canon, in our view, was
primarily the achievement of gentile Christianity, although
of course there would have been no New Testament if an
Old Testament had not already existed. Among the earliest
Christians there was no New Testament; their Bible con-
sisted of the Old Testament alone. One of the principal
problems which the Church had to confront during the
second century was the relation between this Bible and the
Christian gospel expressed in oral traditions and in writings.
Gentile Christians insisted upon the superiority of the gospel
to the predictions and prefigurations which they found in
the Old Testament, and this insistence finally led to the
formation of the New Testa1nent as a collection of books
which could be viewed as 'scripture'.
Our study could obviously not be undertaken apart from
the advances made during the last century of biblical and
patristic research. For the late nineteenth century and the
early twentieth the names of Harnack and Zahn remain
crucially important. Among modern scholars we may men-
tion especially J. Ruwet on Clement and Origen, W. C.
van Unnik on Gnostic writings (and non-Gnostic writings
as well), and H. Koester on the Apostolic Fathers.
 I
The scriptures of the earliest Church

Our study of the formation of the New Testament in the

early Church is concerned with the books which early
Christians read. They began with the Old Testament, as the
rather literary-minded Luke indicates in his picture of Jesus
in the synagogue at Nazareth. Jesus 'was given the book of
the prophet Isaiah, and opening the book he found the
place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon
me ..."' (Luke 4:17-18; Isaiah 61:r). Similarly in Acts 7:
42 we hear of the 'book of the prophets', a reference to the
Jewish book of 'the Twelve Prophets', including Amos,
from which a quotation foilows. In Acts 13:33 we find a
precise reference to 'the second Psalm'- a reference which
in some manuscripts has been corrected to 'the first Psalm'
because the two psalms were sometimes run together (as in
Justin, Apo!. 40, 8-18). This evidence is enough to show
that Luke, at least, was greatly concerned with Old Testa-
ment prophecy and referred to particular passages with
some care. Similarly the evangelist Matthew depicts im-
portant events in the life of Jesus as taking place so that
particular prophecies, carefully quoted, might be fulfilled.
There is no reason for us to labor this point, or to inquire
whether early Christians used the proph.etic writings as
wholes or in the form of selections of 'testimonies'-or in
14 TH E FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

both ways-since it is enough to state that for the early

Church 'scripture' primarily meant the Old Testament.
Naturally enough, the Old Testament books were quoted
in order to lay emphases on predictions or prefigurations of
the life of Jesus and of the Christian community. This is to
say that Christians found prophecy throughout the Old
Testament, in a fashion not unlike that of the Qumran
community, where prophecies were viewed as largely ful-
filled in the work of the Teacher of Righteousness. Such
interpretations, indeed, are to be found in much of the
Jewish apocalyptic literature of this period. The Old Testa-
ment pointed forward beyond itself and either had begun
to be fulfilled or was just about to be fulfilled.
Since the New Testament books which reflect the life of
early Christians are written exclusively in Greek, it is not
surprising that most of the Old Testament quotations in
them are derived from the Greek Old Testament, the
Septuagint; but sometimes, for example in the Gospel of
Matthew, some of the quotations seem to be based on
different renderings of the Hebrew text. Recent archaeo-
logical discoveries have shown that the Septuagint was in
circulation even in Palestine, and that its text was somewhat
different from that found in the major, later manuscripts.
Undoubtedly the Palestinian Greek manuscripts underwent
a good deal of correction on the ground of comparison with
Hebrew texts, and it may be that New Testament passages
which seem to be closer to the Hebrew than to the Sep-
tuagint are based on corrected Septuagint texts.
The Old Testament books which the earliest Christians
read, however, were those which are contained in the
Hebrew Bible. Clear references or allusion to other books,
as we shall see later, are found only in Hebrews, James and
Jude. In general the earlier Christians restricted their reading
to 'the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms'
 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH 15

(Luke 24:44), although with the Psalms was included the

book of Proverbs (cf. Rom. 12:20).
It is quite possible that the earliest Christians wrote letters
and memoranda or other documents,1 but the oldest one to
survive- if it js authentic, as it appears to be-is a letter
from the Church of Jerusalem to gentile Christians in the
vicinity of Antioch (Acts 15 :23-29), about the year 47.

The apostles and the elders, brethren, to the gentile brethren

in the vicinity of Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.
Since we have heard that some persons coming from us have
disturbed you with words, unsettled your minds (although we
gave them no instructions), it has seemed good to us in
assembly to choose men and send them to you with our
beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their
lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore
sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same
things by word of mouth.
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay
upon you no burden except these necessary matters: for you
to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood,
from _what is strangled, and from fornication. If you keep
yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

This four-part letter follows the general pattern of Greek

official decrees. It begins with a salutation, describes the
circumstances under which the decree bas been voted ('it
has seemed good to us in assembly'), gives the decree itself
('it has seemed good . . . to us'), and ends with a brief
'farewell'.
Authentic Christian literature as we know it, however,
begins with the letters of the apostle Paul, perhaps about
the year 50. These letters are often regarded as 'occasional'
1 Compare the letters Paul received from the high priest (Acts
9: 1-2, 14).
16 T H E FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

in the sense that he wrote them in haste and for specific

situations. Such a classification is partly true, partly inade-
quate. It is true that specific occasions called forth the res-
ponses expressed in the letters; but the letters do more than
set forth the encounters between Paul's mind and the situa-
tions. They come out of a fairly long period of life and
thought in the Christian community, and in them Paul
invariably passes beyond the specµic situations to expound
the implications of Christian faith for himself and for his
readers. They are 'tracts for the times', to be sure, but they
express insights not specifically limited to the local churches
or to the middle of the first century; this is why copies of
them were kept.
Before writing the major letters now preserved-Romans,
1-2 Corinthians, Galatians-Paul had been a zealous
defender of Jewish orthodoxy for some time; he bad been a
Christian convert for nearly two decades, and had worked
as a missionary, often among gentiles, for at least fourteen
years. The letters, therefore, do not contain the spontaneous
effusions of a neophyte. They reflect the considered opinions
of a highly intelligent, deeply Christian leader with heavy
responsibilities for the welfare of the communities under
his direction. His critics were well aware of this fact. 'His
letters,' they said, 'are weighty and powerful, though his
physical presence is ineffective and his speech is con-
temptible' (2 Cor. 10: 10). The letters do not suggest that
they were written in haste. Instead, they contain carefully
reasoned arguments and admonitions, and in many in-
stances they reflect considerable pains in matters of style
and structure. Paul was no G reek rhetorician but he could
and did write in such a way as to communicate his under-
standing of the gospel to his readers.
We may admit that the outline of his letters is not always
transparent. No doubt he did not always follow an outline.
 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH 17

In some cases, however, the situation is different. The thanks-

giving at the beginning of I Corinthians suggests that he
knew in advance most of the themes he was going to discuss.
So does the statement about 'the gospel', along with the
thanksgiving, in Romans. The introductions to 2 Corinthians
and Galatians are somewhat less closely related to the later
parts of the letters, but in Galatians it would have been in-
advisable to give away the whole line of argument at the
beginning.
H ow did Paul actually write his letters? In spite of a vast
amount of work on this subject, the answer is still not
altogether clear. What we actually know can be stated
rather briefly.1 While 1-2 Thessalonians certainly express
the thought and even the style of Paul, they were written in
the names of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, and in I Thessa-
lonians Paul only occasionally differentiates his own state-
ments from those of the others (2: I 8, 3 :5). At the end of 2
Thessalonians (3: 17) he himself adds that 'the salutation is
in my handwriting: "of Paul"-this is an indication in every
letter; thus I write'. This remark clearly points to the
inference that in I Thessalonians 5 :27 the words 'I adjure
you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren'
are Paul's, and that probably the whole conclusion of I
Thessalonians was written by bis band. It seems likely that
the bulk of these letters were dictated rather than actually
written by the apostle.
· In I Corinthians, again, the salutation is written in Paul's
own hand (16:21), and this fact suggests that when he uses
the word 'I write' (5:11) he has dictation in mind. Perhaps
such is also the case in 2 Corinthians I 3: I o ('I write'). The
1 In order to set forth the evidence, certain assumptions have to
be made. The assumption made here is that Paul was the author of ten
epistles, written in the following sequence: 1- 2 Thessalonians, 1- 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians (with
Philemon), Ephesians.
18 THE FORMATI ON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

situation in Galatians is a little more obscure. Paul says to

his readers, 'See with what large letters I write [or, I have
written] with my own hand' (6:11). Since the subject changes
at this point, and since Paul moves on to a conclusion of
the whole letter, it is often supposed that he began writing
here after dictating what went before. This supposition is
probably correct, especially in the light of what bas been
said about salutations; but it ~emains possible that he
actually wrote the whole letter.
Romans presents a special problem. Romans 15 :15- 'on
some points I have written to you very boldly'- proves noth-
ing one way or another. Romans 16:22, however, provides
some remarkable information. It is not from Paul at all
but has been added by a scribe. 'I Tertius greet you, I who
wrote the letter in the Lord.' Now it has often been thought
that Romans 16 does not belong with the rest of Romans
but constitutes a separate letter; on this basis Tertius would
not necessarily have anything to do with Romans 1-15.
This theory seems wrong. It is inconceivable that a Pauline
epistle could have consisted of practically nothing but
greetings, as Romans 16 does. Instead, it clearly provides
the conclusion for the letter as a whole; it indicates who was
to carry the letter (Phoebe of Cenchreae, 16:1- 2), and
Tertius inserts his greetings not because he has just written
something comparable to a postcard but because he bas
been Paul's scribe over an extended period of time.
The imprisonment epistles contain no indications about
the work of scribes, but Colossians ends with a salutation
in Paul's own hand (4:18), and in Philemon 19 Paul writes
a personal IO U which is apparently different from the
writing in the rest of the letter. We may assume, then, that
these letters were dictated.
We conclude that Paul's usual practise was to dictate the
the bulk of his letters to a scribe and often to add notes in
 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH 19
his own handwriting, perhaps itlso correcting what the
scribe had written.
It may be worth noting that arguments from analogy on
this subject are not very convincing. Ancient writers
resembled mo.dern writers in this regard: sometimes they
wrote for themselves, sometimes they dictated. The Roman
orator Cicero preferred to do his own letter-wrifing, but
sometimes he used scribes. I n Acts 15:23 the apostles and
elders of Jerusalem are described as 'writing through the
hand' of J udas and Silas, and these men a re obviously
messengers (15:27). Peter is described as writing 'to you
through Silvan us' (1 Pet. 5: 12), and while it is not impossible
that Silvanus carried the letter, it is more likely that be was
the scribe. When Polycarp tells the Philippians that he has
written them 'through Crescens' and then commends Cres-
cens to them (Phil. 14:1) it is clear that Crescens is to be a
messenger. It is not so clear, however, how Ignatius wrote
his letters. He wrote to the Romans 'through the blessed
Ephesians' and named one of them as 'very dear to him'
(Rom. 10:1); perhaps this man was to carry the letter. He
wrote to the Philadelphians (1 I :2) and the Smyrnaeans
(12: 1) 'through Burrhus'; this probably means, as Walter
Bauer argued, 1 that Burrhus was to carry the letters to the
communities involved.
The use of the word 'through' in this regard is rather am-
biguous. If we take the case of I Clement, a letter of the
Roman church to the Corinthian church, we find its author
describing his own words as 'said by God through us' (59:1)
or as 'written by us through the Holy Spirit' (63 :2). The
ultimate author is God; the intermediate author is the com-
poser of the letter. Nothing is said about a scribe. Similarly,
when D ionysius of Corinth speaks of the same letter as
I Die Briefe des Ignatius van Antiochien und der Polykarpbrief
(TUbingen, 1920), 254.
20 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

written by the Roman church 'through Clement'1 be has

authorship, not penmanship, in mind.
Only in the third century does the composition of
Christian literature come to involve the systematic use of
copyists, and such use seems to have begun when Origen's
wealthy admirer Ambrose, eager to have him produce com-
mentaries on scripture, 'supplied him with more than seven
shorthand writers who relieved Qne another at fixed times,
and as many copyists, as well as girls skilled in penmanship'.2
When Origen wrote a theological letter to Africanus, Am-
brose himself took part in the dictation of the letter-not,
one would suppose, by actually writing it down himself-
and then corrected it for bis friend. 3 Finally, after Origen
had gone to Caesarea and was more than sixty years old,
he permitted shorthand writers to take down his public
discourses. 4 In recent years the final copy of such a discourse
bas turned up on papyrus- the Discussion of the Father, .the
Son, and the Soul with Herac/eides and the other Bishops.
We have discussed this rather late evidence not to suggest
that it is analogous to what we find in the Pauline epistles,
but instead to indicate the variety present in various situa-
tions. It may be urged, however, that inasmuch as Paul did
use copyists it is not unlikely that be retained copies of his
own letters, or that his lieutenants did so, thus making the
task of collecting his letters easier. 5
Once his letters were written, they were not entrusted to
the postal service. The Romans had no postal service except
for the transmission of government mail. Instead, local
messengers would often take a letter to the congregation
being addressed (1 Cor. 16:17-18; Phil. 2:25-30). Sometimes
1 Eusebius, H. E. 4, 23, 11.
2 Ibid., 6, 23, 2.
3 Ep. ad Africa11um (Lommatzsch XVII, 48).
4 Eusebius, H. E. 6, 36, I.
S Perhaps 2 Timothy 4: 13 has something to do with this.
 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH 2 1

one of Paul's lieutenants would carry such a document (2

Cor. 8 :16-24; Eph. 6 :21; Col. 4 :7-9). The deaconess Phoebe
probably carried Romans (Rom. 16 :1); the runaway slave
Onesimus carried the letter to his master Philemon.
Paul was sometimes concerned with the reception and
public reading of his letters. To the Thessalonians he
swears 'by the Lord that the letter should be read to all the
brethren' ( 1 Thess. 5 :27), and in Colossians 4 :16 he gives
instructions for this letter to be read not only at Colossae
but also in the church of the Laodiceans, while the Colos-
sians are to read the letter they receive from Laodicea. It
may be that Paul warns the Thessalonians against forged
letters circulating in his name (2 Thess. 2 :2; cf. 3: 17).
Naturally the correspondence went both ways, though
none of the letters to Paul from the churches has survived
(a letter from the Corinthians to him is a second-century
forgery). Clear proof that Christians wrote to him is provided
in r Corinthians 7: I , where he speaks of matters about
which they had written. In addition, some members of the
community provided him with unwritten information ( 1
Cor. 1 :11). What we find in his letters is only a part of a
much larger exchange of ideas, as countless passages show,
to mention only I Thessalonians 3 :4, 4 :6; 2 Thessalonians
2:5, 3:10; and Galatians 1 :9.
Paul's letters, of course, were not the only specifically
Christian documents which the early Church possessed,
even though they are the only ones we know from the fifties
of the first century. Somewhat later we encounter other
letters, such as the one addressed by (or in the name of)
Peter to the 'Dispersion sojourners' of Pontus, Galatia, Cap-
padocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1: 1), the general epistle
written in Peter's name and containing a reference to itself
as a 'second letter' (2 Pet. 3: 1), and three letters apparently
written by John, with frequent use of the verb 'to write'.
22 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TEST AMENT

These examples indicate that Christians were becoming in-

creasingly self-conscious about literary processes, and we are
therefore not surprised to find an injunction about reading
in Mark 13:14 and emphasis on Jesus' reading in Luke 4:
16-20. Indeed, Luke's gospel begins with a statement about
the author's sources and purpose (r :r-4) which recalls
similar passages in the writings of Hellenistic historians (see
also Acts r :r). Towards the end of the Gospel of John there
is another statement of purpose: 'Jesus performed many
other signs ... which are not recorded in this book; but
these are recorded so that you may believe ... ' (John 20:
30-31). And in John 21 :24-25 someone (an editor?) bas
testified to the reliability of the book's sources and has
explained that the world itself could not contain all the
books necessary for recording all of Jesus' actions. This
last comment is intended to tell why other books contain
other materials.
In addition, the Book of Revelation is described as a
written work of prophecy (r :3); it begins with seven stylized
letters to churches ( r : I I), later on contains repeated injunc-
tions to 'write' (14:13, 19:9, 21 :5), and ends with a solemn
curse laid upon anyone who adds to the content of the book
or subtracts from it (22:18- 19).
We get a few further glimpses of early Christian literary
creativity when we look at some of the writings of the so-
called Apostolic Fathers, most of whom flourished in the
early second century or, in the case of Clement of Rome, at
the end of the first. The letter we know as I Clement was
specifically directed by 'the church of God sojourning at
Rome' to 'the church of God sojourning at Corinth' and
was carried to Corinth by three Roman Christians, named
at the end of the work. More copies were soon put in circu-
lation, however, since Ignatius, a few decades later, prob-
ably knew the letter and his contemporary Polycarp of
 THE SCRI PTURES OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH 23

Smyrna knew it practically by h~art (perhaps it was pre-

served at Smyrna, from which Ignatius wrote several of his
own letters). It was also treasured at Corinth, as the later
bishop Dionysius tells us, and towards the end of the second
century it was. certainly known by I renaeus of Lyons, who
had visited Rome, and by Clement of Alexandria.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters to four churches (three
in Asia Minor, one the church of Rome) from Smyrna, on
his way to a Roman martyrdom; from Troas in Asia Minor
he wrote three more. He had intended to write letters to all
the churches on the route ahead of him (Rom. 4:1), but
when he found he could not complete his task because be
was abruptly sailing from Troas to Neapolis he asked Poly-
carp of Smyrna to write on his behalf (Polyc. 8 :1). From a
later letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (13 :1-2) we know
that Polycarp did write to this church and that the Philip-
pians replied to him, sending a letter through him to the
church of Antioch and asking him for a collection of
Ignatius' letters. The seven Ignatian letters which we now
possess were obviously collected by Polycarp and sent to
Philippi; this is why most of the manuscripts of Ignatius'
letters also contain Polycarp's covering letter. The letters
of the bishop of Antioch were given an imprimatur-though
quite an unofficial one-by the bishop of Smyrna.
A similar semi-official approval was given to part of the
Shepherd of Hermas, at least the part which Hermas say she
copied from a little book which an old woman-the Church
- gave him in a vision (Vis. 2, 1, 4). Before he had given his
copy 'to the elect of God', the old woman appeared to him
again and told him that she had more to say. 'When I have
finished all the words they shall be made known through
you to all the elect' (2, 4, 2). The way in which this 'publi-
cation' was to take place was made very explicit: Hermas
was to write one little book for Clement to send to 'the
24 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

cities outside'- this reminds us of the transmission of I

Clement to the Corinthians and perhaps to other churches
-and one for Grapte, who would instruct the widows and
orphans at Rome from it. Hennas himself was to read the
book at Rome 'with the presbyters who govern the church'
(2, 4, 3).
In Hermas' description we find portrayed the activities of
a Christian layman who saw visi0ns and reported them to
the authorities of the Roman community. Presumably they
gave their stamp of approval, for otherwise it would be hard
to imagine how Hermas' work would have been-as it was
- rapidly transmitted to various Christian communities,
including (by the end of the second century) those at Lyons
(Irenaeus), Antioch (Theophilus), and Alexandria (Clement).
These three kinds of documents (church/church: I
Clement; bishop/church: Ignatius and Polycarp; and lay-
man/church: Hermas) doubtless do not exhaust the kinds
of writings there were, but they show us that there was at
least this much diversity. The situation in the first century
was probably not dissimilar; all we know about it suggests
that it was much the same.

It is most unlikely that any of the New Testament books

were written later than the beginning of the second century,
and most were probably completed before the year 80.
Unfortunately, our information about the life and thought
of the Church during the last quarter of the first century is
very limited, and if we try to describe the way or ways in
which the New Testament books were being used and trans-
mitted during this period we must rely in large measure on
inferences, hypotheses, and guesses. In later chapters
(IV- VI) we shall turn to what is known about the very last
years of the first century and the early years of the second.
Here, however, we shall try to set forth what we can imagine
 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE EA R LIEST CH U R CH 25
to have been happening in the period before the Apostolic
Fathers wrote.
G. Zuntz has made the interesting point that in I Clement
(about 95) there is a paraphrase of Romans I :29-32 ( 1 Clem.
35 :5- 6) which ends with the words ' Those who do [prasson-
tes] these things are hateful to God-not only those who
do [prassontesj them, but also those who share in approving
them.'1 The text is clearly based on Romans 1 :32-the
word prasso occurs there but not elsewhere in I Clement-
though not on Romans in the original form but close to what
is read in the Beatty papyri (P 46). Here we have our oldest
reflection of Romans I :32, from a Christian community
which had received the letter only forty years earlier from
Paul himself; but the text has been corrupted. Perhaps the
change is due to an early copyist; perhaps it derives from
Paul's own scribe.
Such possibilities lead us to wonder how the Pauline
epistles may have been collected. Apart from the Pastorals
and Romans, aU those we possess are addressed to com-
munities in a relatively restricted area-on the western
shores of the Aegean Sea (Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica)
and in western Asia Minor (Laodicea [?], Colossae, Galatia).
It is conceivable that the letters were collected by Christians
in the focal center of Asia Minor, Ephesus, and- in any
event- probable that such a collection had been made by
the time when 2 Peter was written; for in it (3:16) we read
of 'all the epistles' of Paul, and the context suggests an
allusion to r Timothy 1 :16. This point indicates that toward
the end of the first century a collection of Pauline letters
was in existence, though we do not know that such a col-
lection was universally accepted or that there were not
various collections in existence.
It has sometimes been suggested that when such a collection
I The Text of the Epistles (Oxford, 1953), 219-20.
26 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

was made it may have been headed by I Corinthians, and

that at that point some 'universalizing' words were added
to Paul's salutation. He would have addressed only the
Corinthian Christians, while an editor would have added
'with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ in every place, their [Lord] and ours'. Hans Lietz-
mann, however, drew attention to Jewish synagogue in-
scriptions which contain the words 'peace be upon this
place and upon every place of [the people] Israel'. Paul him-
self, not an editor, is therefore making use of a Jewish
formula of blessing; the blessing is universal, but his letter
is intended for the Corinthians.1 There is thus no evidence
to support this theory about the collection.
Another theory, much more ingenious, was produced by
E. J. Goodspeed about thirty years ago. 2 In his view there
were no collections of the Pauline letters until a concern for
Paul's writings arose, about A.O. 85, because of the publi-
cation of the Acts of the Apostles. At that point a devoted
Paulinist from the Lycus valley in Asia Minor-a man who
already possessed Colossians and Philemon-procured a
number of the letters, either by correspondence or by actual
visits, from communities with which, according to Acts,
Paul had been closely related. As a kind of 'introduction to
Pauline theology' the same person produced Ephesians,
based largely on Colossians and other letters, to go at the
beginning of his collection. Goodspeed's theory has one im-
portant foundation stone in the New Testament. Colossae
is not mentioned in Acts; the other communities addressed
in the Pauline epistles are mentioned there. It is easier to
move from Colossians to the collection, so to speak, than
to explain why Colossians would otherwise be included in
it. To this conjectural explanation Goodspeed added-with
I Texte und Untersuchungen 68 (Berlin, 1958), 284-87.
2 The Meaning of Ephesians (Chicago, 1933).
 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE EARLIEST C H URCH 27

the assistance of John K nox1-the further hypothesis that

the collector was Onesimus, since this is the name of the
runaway slave in the letter to Philemon and, as well, of
the bishop of Ephesus in Ignatius' time (a half century
later).
There are several difficulties with this theory. (I) Could
Acts have stimulated interest in Paul's letters? It never men-
tions any of them or describes Paul as writing to churches.
(2) Ephesians may well be an encyclical letter- or was it, as
Marcion conjectured, written to the Laodiceans? It is by
no means certain, in any event, that Paul did not write it
himself. (3) It is difficult to believe that communications
among the Christian communities of the first century were
so limited that they did not exchange apostolic letters,
especially since Paul himself refers in r Corinthians 16:r to
what he had told the churches of Galatia and elsewhere
gives news about one church to another (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:1)
and instructs the Colossians to exchange letters with the
Laodiceans (Col. 4:r5-16).
On balance, we are inclined to reject this hypothesis, even
though we must then admit that we have nothing equally
ingenious to substitute for it. In later chapters we shall con-
sider the evidence which actually exists in the writings of
the Apostolic Fathers. For the moment, however, we wish
to disregard it and offer imaginative possibilities as to the
way or ways in which the New Testament writings were
handed down in the latter half of the first century. We have
already suggested that one, or perhaps more than one, col-
lection of Pauline letters was in existence and in circulation
(2 Peter). The situation as regards the gospels is not so clear.
If we were to assume that the tradition is correct which
relates the Gospel of Mark to Rome, then we might well
proceed to argue that when this book came to be known
I Philemon Among the Letters of Paul (Chicago, 1935)
28 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW T ESTAMEN T

elsewher~and such would probably have been the case

very early, because of the centrality of the capital city-it
would then (I) have been read in conjunction with other
traditions about Jesus, oral and/or written, and next (2)
have been combined with these traditions in written form.
In this way it would be possible to explain the origin of the
Gospel of Matthew, perhaps in Syria, and the Gospel of
Luke, according to late tradition in Greece. The fact that
Mark was not used in the Gospel of John would suggest
that John lived and wrote in a community where Mark was
not known, perhaps in Palestine, or else that John and/or
his readers were so firmly convinced of the authenticity of
his gospel that they were not concerned with relating Mark
to it.1
It should also be noted that the 'period of oral tradition'
did not come to an end when written gospels were produced.
Luke certainly knew written narratives about the life of
Jesus (1:r), but he did not feel that they contained all the
traditions that existed; in Acts 20 :36 he quoted a saying of
Jesus which he did not report in his own Gospel. Similarly,
John (20:30) refers to 'signs' performed by Jesus but not
recorded in his work. And it is well known that not only
among Gnostics but also among more orthodox Christians
'unwritten' sayings of Jesus continued to circulate in the
late second century and afterwards.
We must therefore envisage a situation in the latter half
of the first century in which Mark circulated rather widely
but in a context in which were found not only other written
gospels but also continuing oral traditions. In some localities
local traditions were combined with Mark; in other locali-
ties they were not. The evidence for combining Mark with
other traditions is to be found in the gospels of Matthew
and Luke and, in addition, in the two additional versions of
I Except perhaps, by implication, in John 20:30-31 and 21 :25.
 THE SCRIP TU RES OF THE EARLIES T CHURCH 29
Mark to which the fragment of Clement of Alexandria dis-
covered by Morton Smith refers: one, a distinctively Gnos-
tic, precisely Carpocratian version; the other, a version used
in secret by the church of Alexandria. The fact that Smith's
fragment speaks of these versions of Mark, and that we
never learn elsewhere of various versions of Matthew1 or
Luke or John, seems to point toward the widespread and
early dissemination of this Gospel alone.
It is therefore all the more surprising that, as we shall see
in Chapter III, there are practically no traces of Mark
among the Apostolic Fathers, except in the writings of
Papias of Hierapolis. We must therefore make a further
assumption- that after Mark was sent forth it was almost
immediately combined with local traditions of various kinds
and that the newer gospels, more complete and more
meaningful than Mark, soon came into circulation and
replaced Mark's work. In Rome itself, collections of oral
traditions (in writing or not) were employed; at Antioch,
there were the gospels of Matthew and John, and perhaps
Luke, as well as oral traditions. Finally, we suggest that in
all these localities, as well as in others, tbere was probably
present a mixture of books and oral traditions, and that the
fact that we can trace (with some measure of confidence)
the presence of particular books in the particular writings
we possess does not prove that other books were not in use.
Our evidence is too severely limited for us to be able to erect
lofty edifices of inference upon it.
As for the circulation of the non-Pauline epistles and the
Revelation of John, we know practicaJly nothing. We may
suppose, however, tbat Hebrews, which is somehow related
to Italy (13 :24), would be read at Rome-and Clement of
Rome did read it. 1 Peter, sent in the apostle's name to
1 The idea that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the original of
Matthew is a rather late, learned conjecture.
30 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW T ESTAMENT

various churches in Asia Minor (1 :r), would have been pre-

served among them and at Rome as well, and no doubt was
circulated from Rome to other churches. By the time the
author of 2 Peter wrote, he could produce a very general
epistle and can refer back to 1 Peter as universally known
(3: 1). Since he made use of Jude, another general letter, in
his own epistle, we may assume that he wrote from a locality
in which such documents were collected (cf. also a possible
allusion to John 21 :18 in 2 Peter I :14) and from which they
were sent-perhaps Rome. The three Johannine epistles may
represent the contribution of Asia Minor, and the Revelation
of John, with its introductory letters to seven Asia Minor
churches, certainly comes from that area. The epistle of
James is harder to place, but it is highly probable that it
represents (in its present form) a document, or group of
documents, preserved at Jerusalem. The fact that tangible
proof of its existence is not available before the end of the
second century may reflect only the gaps in our information;
it may also point to a certain lack of contact between
Jerusalem and other churches.
There are two passages within the New Testament books
themselves which may suggest that their authors regard
other apostolic or sub-apostolic documents as 'scripture' in
the sense in which the Old Testament was scripture. Both
passages are found in letters which are ascribed to apostles
but seem to have been produced at a somewhat later time.
The first is I Timothy 5: 18, a verse rather similar to I Cor-
inthians 9:9. Both epistles deal with Deuteronomy 25:4,
'You shall not muzzle an ox threshing grain,' and refer it
to payments to Christian ministers, but in 1 Timothy we
read that 'the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle ... ",
and "the workman deserves his wage" '. Obviously the
author regards the second quotation as derived from scrip-
ture-and it is found in Luke 10:7. It is possible that by
 THE SCR I PTURES OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH 31

'scripture' he means Deuteronomy. 25 :4 and that he regards

the second quotation as exegesis of it. Alternatively, he is
really quoting from Luke as scripture; in this case, his letter
must have been written after the composition of Luke,
which (since tb.e book is partly based on Mark) brings us
to a date in the last quarter of the first century. It could well
be that he is using the word 'scripture' in a rather fl'ee way
-as in 2 Timothy 3: I 5-I 6, where Timothy is described as
having known 'sacred writings' from infancy and these
sacred writings are composed of 'every inspired scripture'.
The other passage, in 2 Peter, is also fairly imprecise.
The author, writing a general letter with no particular
readers in mind, speaks of regarding 'our Lord's long-
suffering as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul . . .
wrote to you' (3 :15). The passage he has in mind seems to
be I Timothy 1:15-16, and if this is so, for him the Pauline
epistles include the Pastorals and are regarded as addressed
to all Christians, not just the original recipients of the letters.
Furthermore, the author of 2 Peter speaks of 'all his [Paul's]
epistles', and describes 'the ignorant and unstable' as mis-
interpreting not only these letters but also 'the other
scriptures' (3 :16). For the author, then, there is a collection
of all the P3uline letters, and it can be regarded as 'scripture'.
Unfortunately there is no obvious clue to the date or the
situation in which 2 Peter was written. The earliest clear
trace of its use by any Christian writer occurs in the works
of Origen (third century), and while we should certainly not
suppose that it first came into existence at that time, there
is no reason for regarding it as prior to the last decade of
the first century or, for that matter, the opening decades of
the second. Another situation in which the Pauline epistles
were used in this way is to be found in the let~er of Polycarp
(see Chapter VI).
 II
The Old Testament canon
in Judaism and Christianity

For the earliest Christians 'scripture' consisted of the Old

Testament, and one might suppose that in order to create
their own canon of scripture all they had to do was to take
the Old Testament canon as recognized by Jewish leaders
and add to it a collection of specifically Christian books.
The process was not so simple, however, for among non-
Christian Jews there were varieties of usage and there seems
to have been no attempt to settle the question as to a pre-
cisely defined canon until well after the fall of Jerusalem in
A.D. 70.

Judaism

This not to say that there was not a collection of books

generally accepted. When the Dead Sea sectarians collected
passages in which they found predictions of the future
related to their own destiny, they confined their attention
to such Old Testament documents as Genesis, Exodus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 2 Samuel, the Psalms,
Isaiah, and Amos.1 Evidently they were relying on authorities
I For these collections see J. M. Allegro in Journal of Biblical
Literature 75 (1956), 174-87; 77 (1958), 350-54.
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 33
recognized not only by themselves but also by other Jews
who might ask them questions. There was something like
an Old Testament, prior to the sect and to its competitors.
Our earliest evidence for the existence of an Old Testament
is to be found in the prologue to the Greek translation of
the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), written about 130
B.C. The translator speaks of 'the law and the prophets and
the other ancestral books'. From Sirach itself (cc. 42-50) it
is plain that there was a collection which included the five
books of Moses and the historical writings, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets, Psalms, Proverbs,
and Chronicles-perhaps Job as well. In 1 Maccabees 12:9
(about 100 B.C.) we hear of 'the holy books', though we are
not told what they are.
The existence of this collection, however, was not equiva-
lent to the existence of a fixed canon of Old Testament books
in tbe sense that nothing could be added to it or taken away
from it. T his fact is made especially clear by the discoveries
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for at Qumran there was a range
of sacred literature much wider than what we have en-
countere~ in Sirach. The composition of sacred books, often
regarded as secret, was continued, especially by writers of
apocalypse.s who wanted to ascribe their own views to
authors who lived long before them. The Apocalypse of
Enoch (r Enoch) provides the most notable example .
.Generally speaking, the New Testament writers confined
their reading to the books most widely accepted by contem-
porary Jews. This is the situation we find mentioned in
Luke 24 :44: 'the law of M oses, the prophets, and the
psalms'. On the other hand, some New Testament writers
clearly went beyond these limits. Jn Hebrews r :3 there is a
clear reflection of the Wisdom of Solomon (7 :25- 26), while
in Jude 9 there is a paraphrase of the apocryphal Assumption
of Moses and, in Jude 14-1 5, a quotation from 1 Enoch 1 :9.
B
34 T HE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

An unknown writing is cited as scripture in James 4:5.

This is to say that there was a collection of books generally
received, but no canon absolutely fixed.
A tripartite division like Luke's is to be found in the
treatise On the Contemplative Life written by the first-cen-
tury Alexandrian Jew Philo. We hear of 'laws and oracles,
delivered by prophets, and hymns and the other [books] by
which knowledge and piety are IJ1Utually increased and per-
fected'. Most of Philo's quotations from the Old Testament
are taken from the Pentateuch; but in his writings there are
no references to Ezekiel, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, the Song of
Songs, Esther, R uth, or Lamentations-not to mention the
books later regarded as apocryphal. I n this respect it is prob-
ably significant that Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, the Song, and
Esther encountered criticism made by various rabbis at a
later date, and that in the New Testament there are no allu-
sions to the last three books. In other words, both Philo and
the New Testament writers seem to reflect collections of
Old Testament books which in some measure were more
restricted than was the case among other writers of the first
century.
The first definite picture of an Old Testament canon which
we possess is that provided by the apologist Josephus in his
treatise Against Apion, written at Rome between A.D. 94
and 96. This is what he says ( r, 38-40):

Among us there are not countless discordant and conflicting

books, but only twenty-two, containing the account of all history
and rightly given credence. Five of these books are by Moses;
they contain the laws and the tradition from the creation of man-
kind up to his death (a period of about 3,000 years). From the
death of Moses to [the time ofl Artaxerxes king of the Persians,
the prophets after Moses composed the history of their times
in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God
and moral precepts for men.
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 35
Josephus' mention of Artaxerxes shows that he has in mind
the book of Esther, in which this king plays a prominent
part. We do not know exactly what the other books were
which he included in his groups of thirteen and four: but
the most natur,al assumption, in view of lists later ascribed
to Jewish sources, is that the thirteen were made up of
Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles,- Ezra-
Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah- Lamenta-
tions, Ezekiel, and the Twelve, while the hymns and precepts
were found in Psalms, the Song, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.1
It is sometimes supposed that Josephus reflects an 'Alex-
andrian' canon of the Old Testament because, as in the
Septuagint version- the most popular Greek version of the
Old Testament in his time-Ruth follows Judges and Lamen-
tations follows Jeremiah. The same situation is to be found,
however, among Jewish informants of Origen (Eusebius,
H. E. 6, 25), and we do not know that they were following
Alexandrian tradition. The fact that later rabbis placed Ruth
and Lamentations in a special division called Kethubim, or
'writings', does not show that earlier rabbis did so. Indeed,
the nuIQber of books Josephus insists upon suggests that
he is following Hebrew sources, for there are twenty-two
letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
But while Josephus' collection may well have been as
'canonical' as he insists it was, the number of the books in
the Jewish canon was not definitely fixed. Arguments about
Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song, and Esther seem
to have continued after Josephus' time; and in the apocal-
lyptic 2 Esdras (4 Ezra), composed in the last decade of the
first century, we hear of a collection of ninety-four books,
seventy of which are secret, while twenty-four are openly
1 H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (London, I 892),
165- 66; T. Reinach-L. Blum, Flavius Josephe Cantre Apion (Paris,
1930), 10 n. 3.
36 T HE FORMAT ION OF THE NEW TESTAMEN T

published (14:45-48). This number is also found in the

Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra r4b), in accordance with
a tradition which probably goes back to the second century
of our era. The difference between twenty-four and twenty-
two is due to the separation of Ruth from Judges and of
Lamentations from Jeremiah.
In our opinion, however, the content of the Hebrew canon
was well enough settled after the time of Josephus and 2
Esdras; the minor variations are not especially important.
Presumably the agreement between these authors is due to
the crystallization of opinion in late first-century Palestine,
especially under the influence of the sages who taught and
discussed such matters at Jamnia. A council held there
about A. D. 85-90 considered the nature of the canon, though
the nature of its conclusions is not absolutely clear.

Christianity

Christians were often much concerned about the nature of the

Jewish canon of the Old Testament, especially as they came
to be aware that after Jamnia it was more clearly defined
than it bad been earlier. Some Christians were concerned
because of their close ties with Judaism; others, because in
debates with Jews they bad to use authorities accepted by
their opponents.
A document reflecting the ideas of the former group and
apparently originating in the second century has been recon-
structed by J.-P. Audet. 1 He relied on lists found in a Jeru-
salem manuscript of the year 1056 (this manuscript, first
published in 1883, contains the Didache) and in Epipbanius'
treatise On Weights and Measures. I n this list there are
'A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek
1
Transcription', Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1950), 133-54.
 TH E OL D TES T AMENT CANON 37
twenty-seven Old Testament books, with titles given in
Greek and in Hebrew or Aramaic.

I. Bresith (Genesis) r5. D ebri iamim

2. Elesimoth (Exodus) (Chronicles [I])
3. O[d]oikra (Leviticus) 16. Debri iamim
4. Of Jesu~ (Joshua) (Chronicles [II])
5. Eledebarim 1 7. Of Proverbs
(Deuteronomy) I 8. Of Koheleth (Ecclesiastes)
6. Ouidabir (Numbers) 19. Sir asirim (Song of Songs)
7. Of R uth 20. Of Jeremiah
8. Of Job 2 1. Of the Twelve
9. Of Saphtio (Judges) 22. Of Isaiah
10. Sphcr telim (Psalter) 23. Of Ezekiel
I I. Of Samuel, I 24. Of Daniel
12. Of Samuel, II 25. Of Esdras, I
13. Of Kings, I 26. Of Esdras, II
14. Of Kings, II 27. Of Esther

The names of the books of the Pentateuch (into which

Joshua, with a Greek title, is mysteriously inserted)1 are
given in Hebrew, as are the Psalms, Chronicles, and the
Song of Songs. Some of the other names are definitely
Aramaic (Judges, Kings, and Proverbs), and this, along
with the fact that 'of' represents the Aramaic genitive part-
icle, suggested to Audet that the list was based partly on
Hebrew texts and partly on Aramaic translations or 'tar-
gums'. In any event, the list obviously originated among
Jews or Christians who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and
then was used among Christians who also spoke Greek.
From our standpoint the sequence of titles has some
rather peculiar traits; but we must remember that in the
second century the arrangement was silll fairly fluid. Melito
of Sardis will show us the sequence Numbers/Leviticus. In
Audet's opinion the arrangement of items· 7-16 (Ruth- 2
1 More simply, Numbers and Joshua are simply transposed.
38 T HE F ORMA TION OF THE NEW TESTA MEN T

Chronicles) is 'haphazard',1 but it may reflect an attempt to

put Job in the time of the Judges; such a notion is ascribed
to Rabbi Eleazar in Baba Bathra.2 Similarly, the Psalms
may be placed before the books of Samuel because of their
supposed Davidic authorship ; another Jewish list provided
by Epiphanius (Pan. 8, 6, 2) gives the sequence Judges-
Ruth-Job-Psalms, then the three books ascribed to Solo-
mon. These three books, in Audet's list, more naturally
follow Chronicles. The order of the prophetic books is
rather strange, presumably because it was not definitely
fixed; and Esther may come at the end because of doubts as
to its canonical status.
In any event, these are the Old Testament books probably
accepted by Jews and by Jewish Christians alike in the second
century. It can be supplemented by a list which Eusebius
copied from the Selections of Melito, bishop of Sardis in
Asia Minor about 170.3 Melito tells us that there were
questions as to the true number and the true order of the
Old Testament books, and that he had undertaken a pil-
grimage to Palestine in order to acquire correct in formation,
apparently from Greek-speaking Jewish Christians. His list
is as follows :

Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,

Deuteronomy;
Jesus Nave (Joshua), Judges, Ruth;
of Kingdoms, four books;
of Chronicles, two books.
Of Psalms of David [one book?].
Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom; Ecclesiastes; Song
of Songs; Job.
Of prophets: of Isaiah, of Jeremiah, of the Twelve in one
volume; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.
1 Ibid., 150.
2 Ryle, op. cit. , 277- 78.
3 H. E. 4, 26, 13- 14.
 THE OLD T EST AMENT CANON 39
As in Audet's list, the titles are a little peculiar, but there
is no interrelation between the two. Melito's use of the word
'of' has nothing to do with Aramaic, for be is using Greek
titles, as his classifying of Sam.uel and Kings together as
'Kingdoms' shows. He also takes pains to indicate that when
bis readers bear of a book of Wisdom they should think not
of the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon but of the book of
Proverbs. (In this regard Jewish Christian usage was to
differ from that of other Christians.)
According to P. Katz, the question oftbe exact number of
the books with which Melito was concerned is really
irrelevant. Jewish usage was not fixed at this time, and a
good deal of the variety we encounter is due to different
ways of counting various volumes. 1 There is also a good deal
of error in various lists because of the carelessness of
copyists. This fact may explain Melito's omission of the book
of Esther, although there may have been doubts about it
among Christians as there were among Jews. 2
The question of the order of the books was also, really,
impossible to settle. If there were variations even within the
Pentateuch, how could one expect the works ascribed to
David and Solomon, or the writings of the prophets, to
retain a fixed sequence? Perhaps the remarkable thing is
that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs stayed
together, as did Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve (in varying
orders) and Daniel-Ezekiel (sometimes transposed). 3
To some extent the evidence we have found in Audet's list
and in Melito can be supplemented by what J ustin, arguing
1 Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 41 (1956),
19 1- 217.
2 Clement of Alexandria (Str. 1, 123, 2) speaks of Esther and
Mordecai 'whose book is in circulation as is that of the Maccabees'.
This probably points to doubts about Esther's canonical status.
3 Another list, derived from Jewish sources by Origen (Eusebius
H. E. 6, 25, 1-2), adds little but further confusion.
40 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

with a Jewish opponent, provides about 160 in his Dialogue

with Trypho, since he explicitly claims that he is arguing on
the basis of books accepted by Jews. It is thus fairly signifi-
cant that he explicitly mentions the books of Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, and Kingdoms (with a quotation from
1 Kings); he also speaks of the Psalms and refers to :five of
them by their numbers in the Greek version. Like Melito,
he refers to the Proverbs of Solomon as 'Wisdom' (Dial.
129, 3); he also quotes from, and names, the book of Job.
Among the prophets he refers to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and Daniel, as well as to the Twelve Prophets. In addition,
his remarks about the text of Esdras show that Jews accepted
at least one book by him (Dial. 72, 1). Books out of which
Justin takes quotations or allusions, without naming them,
include Numbers, Deuteronomy, and 2 Chronicles.
We lack references or allusions to Judges-Ruth, Ecclesi-
astes, the Song of Songs, and Esther. The absence of Judges-
Ruth must be due simply to Justin's mode of argument, since
there is no reason to suppose that the authority of these
books was ever questioned. On the other hand, questions
were raised about the last three books in Jewish circles, and
this fact may account for his silence in regard to them. His
evidence is highly tantalizing, for it is plain enough that he
could have answered our questions about these 'marginal'
books had he wished to do so. It is clear, however, that all
the Jews he knew used the major Old Testament books.
It should also be said that outside Alexandria a collection
of Old Testament books essentially Jewish in origin and
nature was employed, although with occasional additions.
Theophilus of Antioch gives us quotations from twelve Old
Testament books and alludes to others in such a way as to
provide testimony to everything except Leviticus, Numbers,
Judges-Ruth, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Esther.
Once more, there seems to be no reason for his having to
 THE OLD TES T AMENT CANON 41
avoid the first three, but since he was strongly influenced by
Jewish ideas he may have preferred not to use the last three.
In addition, be definitely alluded to the book of Baruch
(sometimes also read by Jews) and perhaps to Tobit.
Similarly his contemporary Irenaeus reflects knowledge of
all the Hebrew Old Testament (in Greek) except for Ruth
(often combined with Judges), the books of Chronicles,
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Esther. Though it may
seem unlikely that he could have rejected the books of
Chronicles, they do not appear in the earliest Christian
Syriac version of the Old Testament, and they may have .
been absent from some Greek Bibles. As we have already
seen, there were difficulties about the last three books
mentioned, and they do not really come into their own in
Christian circles until the beginning of the third century.
We may suspect that these later Christians avoided
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Esther both because
these books are not employed in the New Testament and
also because their teaching had little to offer Christians
except when, in regard to the Song of Songs, allegorization
was strongly employed. This is to say that for Christians as
for Jews the idea of 'scripture', at least in regard to these
books, was less important than the question of religious and
theological content.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

In addition to the books generally accepted by Jews, there

were also sectarian documents, chiefly apocalyptic in nature,
which were enthusiastically accepted in places like Qumran.
Among these were such books as I Enoch, Jubilees, the
Aramaic Testament of Levi, the Psalms · of Joshua, and
anthologies of Old Testament texts. Some of these works
42 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

were used by Christian writers either before or after the

closing of the Jewish canon. Furthermore, there were books
which were not quite canonical but were used sometimes
by Jews, sometimes by Christians, and sometimes by both
groups. Origen, for example, tells us that 'outside these' -
the canonical books-'are the Maccabaean books, which
are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel'. The meaning of this Hebrew
title is not absolutely certain, but it is evident that Origen
has a Hebrew text of I Maccabees in mind. This book had
been used by Josephus for historical information; it re-
appears in the writings of Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Ori-
gen. Again, 2 Maccabees was used by Philo of Alexandria,
and it is reflected in such Christian writings as Hebrews
(I I :35) and works by Clement, Hippolytus, and Origen.
Traces of 3 Maccabees are harder to find. It is copied in the
fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, but when three books of
Maccabees are mentioned in the fourth-century Apostolic
Constitutions (8, 47, 85) the books in view may be 1, 2, and
4 Maccabees. The semi-philosophical 4 Maccabees is found
both in Codex Alexandrinus and in the fourth-century
Codex Sinaiticus; Eusebius (H. E. 3, ro, 6) mentions it, and
very probably it was known to Ignatius of Antioch, early in
the second century.1
There were also various books ascribed to Baruch, sup-
posedly the contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah. Accord-
ing to the Apostolic Constitutions (5, 20, 3) I Baruch, found
in the Septuagint manuscripts Vaticanus (fourth century)
and Alexandrinus, was read by Jews when they commemor-
ated the destruction of the temple; but there seems to be
no trace of it in Jewish literature. On the other hand, it was
certainly used by Christians-most of whom ascribed it to
Jeremiah- for there are allusions and/or quotations in the
works of Athenagoras, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Clement,
I See 0. Perler in Rivista di archeologia cristiana 25 (1949), 47-72.
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 43
Hippolytus, and Origen. The early second-century apoca-
lypse known as 2 Baruch had a singular history among
Christians; Papias of Hierapolis ascribed some of its teach-
ing to Jesus (lrenaeus, Adv. haer. 5, 33, 3-4), while a quota-
tion from it in the Epistle of Barnabas is assigned to a
prophet (11: 9). A fourth- or fifth-century papyrus fragment
in Greek (P. ·Oxy. III 403) may have belonged to a C::hristian
at Oxyrhynchus. Finally, another apocalypse known as 3
Baruch may have been known to Origen (De princ. 2, 3, 6).
1 Baruch is a wisdom-book, and there were several other
such books about which Jews, if not Christians, were rather
uncertain. The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is quoted
as scripture in the Talmud, though not all Jews accepted it;
it seems to lie behind some passages in the Didache and I
Clement, and both Clement and Origen frequently made use
of it. It is found in the Septuagint manuscripts Vaticanus,
Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. The Wisdom of Solomon, on
the other hand, does not appear in ancient Jewish writings.
It was used by such Christians as the author of Hebrews
(1 :3), Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Athenagoras, Irenaeus
(only once, however), Tertullian, Clement, and Origen.
Indeed, the Muratorian list (probably late second century)
seems to treat it as part of the New Testament!
Two other books not unlike wisdom literature were not
used by Jews in Origen's time, according to his letter to
Africanus. These are Tobit and Judith. Tobit, however, was
clearly employed by the author of 2 Clement and by Poly-
carp, perhaps by Theophilus, and certainly by Clement,
Hippolytus, and Origen. The Ophite Gnostics (Irenaeus,
Adv. haer, 1, 30, 11) regarded Tobias, the hero of the book,
as inspired by the angel Eloi (Elobim); presumably they
were reacting either to Jewish or to Christian use of the book.
Similarly Judith was known to Clement of Rome, Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.
44 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

We should also mention the apocalypse known as 2

Esdras or 4 Ezra, used in Barnabas (12: 1) and in the Shep-
herd of H ennas, as well as by Clement of Alexandria (Str.
3, 100, 4). This work was taken over by Christians at some
point after its composition late in the first century, for the
first two chapters and the last two, lacking in oriental
versions, are clearly Christian in nature.
Finally, in the Septuagint version there are additions to
various Hebrew books. These additions, not accepted among
the Jews, were clearly used by Christian writers who presum-
ably were relying only on a Greek translation. Among them
we may mention (1) the Song of the Three H oly Children,
added to Daniel, which is reflected in I Clement and defin-
itely accepted by Clement of Alexandria and Origen; (2)
the story of Susanna used by Clement of Alexandria and
defended by Origen against the criticisms of Juljus Africa-
nus; (3) the tale of Bel and the Dragon, accepted by
lrenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen; (4) additions to Esther,
first attested by Josephus and later accepted by Clement of
Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen; and (5) the
Prayer of Manasses, found in the Syriac Didascalia (third
century) and the Apostolic Constitutions (2, 22, 12-14), as
well as in the Codex Alexandrinus.1

For our purposes it is not so important that most of the

writings we have mentioned are reflected at Alexandria by
Clement and Origen, at the end of the second century and
the beginning of the third, as that some of them are echoed
in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, at the beginning of
the second century and, in some cases, at the end of the
first, and in New Testament books. We have already men-
tioned the fact that Hebrews definitely contains an allusion
1 For later use see H. Volz in Zeitschrlft fiir Kirchengeschichte 70
(1959), 293-307.
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 45
to the Wisdom of Solomon, possibly also to 2 Maccabees,
and that in Jude there is some use of apocalyptic literature.
One of the best witnesses to early Christian use of a fairly
extensive Old Testament collection is Clement of Rome,
who wrote to the Corinthians toward the end of the first
century.
Clement's primary Old Testament authorities · are the
Psalms, Job, Isaiah, Genesis, and Proverbs, though be also
quotes from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, and Malachi, paraphrases passages from Numbers,
Joshua, Esther, and Judith, and alludes to the Wisdom of
Solomon. Four quotations come from unidentified, by
definition apocryphal, sources. Clement never names the
books he is using, and sometimes he mixes up his quotations
in a way that suggests he is relying either on rather vague
memories or on an anthology without reproducing its
references. If be is using such an anthology, it contained
some apocryphal sayings but not, it would appear, materials
from Esther or Judith or the Wisdom of Solomon; these are
his own contribution. The basic 'canon' which underlies
Clement's letter is the Jewish canon, although apocryphal
materials have been introduced into it (8 :3, 17 :6, 23 :3-4,
46:2). O11e apocryphal work to which I Clement refers as
'scripture' (23 :3) is cited as 'the prophetic word' in 2 Clement
11 :2; it therefore belonged to Clement's Old Testament.
A rather different situation is to be seen in the Epistle of
Barnabas. Here we find clear and definite quotations from
all five books of the Pentateuch, from Psalms and Proverbs,
and from the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
and Zecbariah, as well as from I Enoch, 2 Esdras, and 2
Baruch. There is probably an allusion to the Wisdonl of
Solomon (20:5), but no quotation fro!Il it. Barnabas
mentions Enoch and paraphrases several verses from his
book (4:3), also quoting from it as scripture (16:5), and he
46 THE FORMATION OF THE N EW TEST AMENT

speaks of the authors of 2 Esdras (12: 1) and 2 Baruch

(1 r: 9) as prophets. His canon, it would appear, consists of
the books generally accepted by Jews-plus at least three
Jewish apocalypses.
We do not gain much information about the Old Testa-
ment from Ignatius or Polycarp, although Ignatius provides
two quotations from Proverbs as scripture (Eph. 5 :3; Magn.
12). An allusion to Isaiah 52 :5 (Trail. 8 :2) shows us how
freely the Old Testament was often quoted. In the Sep-
tuagint the text reads thus: (1) Because of you (2) constantly
(3) my Name (4) is blasphemed (5) among the gentiles.
Phrases 2-5 are repeated exactly in 2 Clement I 3 :2a, and
J, 3-5 with slight modifications in R omans 2 :24. In 2
Clement 13 :2b, apparently, the same verse is quoted again
in another form: Woe (to him) because of whom my Name
is blasphemed; and variants of this occur in Ignatius and in
Polycarp (Phil. 10:3). It is possible that the 'woe' form
actually comes from some apocryphal document; but it is
so similar to the verse in Isaiah that it seems more likely to
be the same thing in another form.
We cannot deny, of course, that the Apostolic Fathers
did make use of apocryphal documents. Indeed, the only
explicit quotation in the Shepherd of Hermas comes from the
lost Book of Eldad and Modat (Vis. 2, 3, 4 ; cf. Num. 1I :26).
In summary, then, we should say that while the 'core' of
the Old Testament in the Apostolic Fathers is the same as
that accepted among Jews in their time, they are also
accustomed to make use of additional apocryphal writings
and, more important, to cite them as 'scripture'. At least
this is true of the authors of 1-2 Clement and Barnabas, and
probably of Hennas as well. Ignatius and Polycarp, res-
ponsible to churches less closely related to Judaism and
Jewish Christianity, are more careful to quote only from
books more widely regarded as canonical. From this fact
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 47
we can probably infer that in Jewish circles relatively close
to Christians the 'canon' was more flexible than it was among
those who were opposed both to apocalyptic ideas in general
and to Christian ideas in particular. Alternatively, Jewish
Christians may have continued to accept books in circulation
before the council of Jamnia (e.g., I Enoch), as well as similar
books written later (e.g., 2 Esdras and 2 Baruch).
Beyond the literature rather widely accepted among
Jewish Christians and often treated as authoritative by others,
there was a broad spectrum of writings accepted by some
Christians and some Gnostics but related to Old Testament
revelation. For example, Justin seems to refer to the
Ascension of Isaiah (Dial. 120, 5); and this book was used
both by Origen and by the Arcbontic Gnostics. Most popu-
lar of all was I Enoch, used by the secretaries at Qumran,
by Jude, Barnabas, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus, later by
Tertullian and Origen, as well as by several authors of
Gnostic apocalypses. Jews and Christians alike made use of
various Testaments of the Patriarchs.
Christians who were fairly closely in touch with rabbinical
Judaism, however, were aware that books like these were
not accepted by most Jews, and in the case ofOrigen we can
see that when he moved from Alexandria to Caesarea in
Palestine he became somewhat more cautious in his usage
of these books, especially in regard to I Enoch.1

The use of Greek versions

In the course of the second century, as Christians continued

to make use of books not accepted by most Jews, and con-
tinued to use the Greek translation which Jews were begin-
ning to reject, it was necessary to establ~sh a theoretical
1 See R. P. C. Hanson, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London,
1954), 136.
48 T HE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

foundation for these practices. (1) Because Christians, as

early as the time of Barnabas, made use of 2 Esdras, it was
possible to rely upon the statement tbat by divine inspiration
Ezra had restored the Old Testament scriptures, burned in
the time of the Exile, and-though the Christian writers do
not say so-added seventy more books. This legend first
appears in Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3, 21, 2) and is repeated by
Tertullian, Clement, and Origen; Eusebius (H. E. 5, 8, 15)
copies it from Irenaeus. (2) The origin of the Septuagint had
been described, about 100 B.c., in the Letter of A risteas,
and Philo of Alexandria had provided an analogous account
while insisting upon the divine inspiration of the translators
(Vit. M os. 2, 25-44). Josephus (Ant. 12, 12-118) copied and
revised the account given in the Letter.1 Among Christians,
even more than among Hellenistic Jews, the authenticity
and inspiration of the Septuagint required defence, and we
find the legend recurring in Justin (Apo/. 1, 31), Irenaeus
(Adv. haer. 3, 21, 2), Clement, Tertullian and J ulius Africa-
nus. Eusebius provides very extensive quotations from the
Letter of Aristeas.2
Beyond the question of inspiration and authenticity lay
that of text. The latter question is first discussed, as we
should expect, in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, an exposi-
t ion of the prophetic meaning of the Old Testament. Justin
claims that many passages which point toward Christ have
been deleted from the Greek Old Testan1ent as read by Jews
(Dial. 7i- 73, i20, 124, 137-38). Some of these passages may
be based on early variants in the Septuagint text, but most
of them actually look like Christian additions.
In Dialogue 71-72 Justin lists the three most important
passages. The ffrst is a rather obscure paragraph supposedly
I A. Pelletier, Flavius Josephe, adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristt!e
(Paris, 1962).
2 Pelletier, Lei/re d'Aristie a Philocrate (Paris, 1962), 22-41.
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 49
from r Esdras. 'And Esdras said to the people.""This Pass-
over is our Savior and our refuge; and if you understand,
and it enters into your heart, that we are going to humiliate
him in a sign, and afterwards we may set our hope on rum,
this place will . never be laid waste, says the God of the
Powers; but if you do not believe him or listen to bis
preaching, you will be an object of ridicule to the gentiles." '
The idea that Christ is the Christians' Passover is set forth
by Paul in I Corinthians 5 :7, on which the author of this
interpolation may well have relied. 1 Clement of Alexandria
may know it; he speaks of Esdras as instituting 'the saving
Passover' (Str. I , 124, 2). 2
The second is supposed to come from Jeremiah. 'The Lord
God, the Holy One [emending the text from Irenaeus) of
Israel, remembered his dead who slept in the earth of burial,
and he descended to them to proclaim his act of salvation
to them.' With minor variants, Irenaeus quotes this text five
times and paraphrases it once;3 the fact that he ascribes it
twice to Jeremiah, once to Isaiah, and once to 'the prophet'
suggests that he is using an anthology-which may well
have included the passage from Esdras as well, since they
are on similar subjects.
The third is found at the end of Psalm 95 (quoted in
Dialogue 73) or in the parallel passage I Chronicles 16:
23-31 (quoted in Apology 41, 4). To the words 'The Lord
reigned' was added the phrase 'from the tree', i.e., the
cross. The interpolation is probably earlier than the Epistle
of Barnabas, in which it seems to be noticed (8 :5). 4
1 The passage recurs, perhaps from Justin, in Lactantius, Div. inst.
4, 18, 22.
2 On 'the saving Passover' see B. Lohse, Das Passafest der Quarta-
decimaner (Gillersloh, 1953), 50-56.
3 Adv. haer. 3, 20, 4; 4, 22, I. 33, I. 33, 12; 5, 31, 1; Epid. 78.
4 See P. Prigent, L'Epftre de Bamabe I- XVI et ses sources (Paris,
1961), I IJ.
50 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

These passages, along with the refusal ofTrypho, Justin's

Jewish opponent, to accept them, show that in the middle
of the second century the Old Testament canon as accepted
by Christians was beginning to be somewhat different from
the canon accepted by Jews. The difference was accentuated
because of (1) the continuing Christian use of the Septuagint
in various forms, (2) the continuing Christian use of Old
Testament anthologies with gar.bled or interpolated texts,
and (3) the rise of new Greek translations among Jews.
The first witness we have to such translations is, once
more, Justin, who says to Trypho that 'you and your teachers
venture to say that in the prophecy of Isaiah (7: 14] it is
not said " Behold the virgin will conceive" but "Behold the
young woman will conceive and bear a son" ' (Dial. 43, 8,
etc.). The next witness, Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3, 2 1, 1), goes
on to give a little information about two translators, Aquila
of Pontus and Theodotion of Ephesus, both of whom he
calls proselytes to Judaism. According to rabbinic tradition
Aquila was a disciple of Rabbi Akiba, about A.O. 130. The
existence of these translations, and of the one made a few
years later by Symmachus, must have encouraged Christians
both to insist upon the importance of the Septuagint and
to adhere to its text fairly closely.
If we try to discover some pattern in the ideas of the Old
Testament canon as reflected in Christian writers of the period
between the New Testament and the rise of the school of
Alexandria in the third century, we find that in so far as
such a pattern exists it is caused by contact with Jews and
their ideas of canonical Hebrew books. Generally speaking,
however, Christians did not hold any clear ideas about the
limits of their own Old Testament. It included books of
wisdom and piety not found in the Hebrew canon; it also
included some books derived from the Jewish apocalyptic
movement.
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 51
Probably the best way to explain the situation and its
results is by using the words of A. C. Sundberg, Jr.: 'the
canon of the Old Testament took its form in the church as
the resultant between the forces of Christian usage that
tended to maintain a book as canonical in the church and
the a priori claims of the Jewish canon that tended to restrict
the Christian Old Testament to the limits of the ·Jewish
definition of scripture. ' 1
This means that while Christians who were concerned
with defining a New Testament canon analogous to the Old
Testament collection could claim that there was such
an entity as an Old Testament canon, they were in no posi-
tion, at least in the first few centuries, to say exactly what
was in it. The Old Testament canon during this time was
more a process than an achievement. We shall see that a
similar observation can be made in regard to the New
Testament.

r Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958), 226.

 III
Books and traditions

If we look only at the Old Testament when we are con-

sidering the formation of the New we are likely to envisage
early Christianity as a movement more literary-minded and,
indeed, more definitely fixed than it actually was. Christian-
ity actually arose in an environment in which oral traditions
were flourishing-that is to say, within Palestinian Judaism.
Proof that such traditions were constantly in circulation is
provided not only by references in the writings of Philo and
Josephus1 and in later rabbinic writings but also by state-
ments made in the New Testament itself, primarily in the
synoptic gospels.
Especially from Mark 7:1- 13 it is clear that oral tradition
was a living power among Jesus' contemporaries (cf. Matt.
15:1- 3, 7-9). Pharisees and others criticize Jesus' disciples
for eating with unwashed hands and not maintaining 'the
tradition of the elders'. In his reply to them be quotes
Isaiah's contrast between worship with lips and worship
with the heart; the former is identified with 'human' tradi-
tion, and Jesus goes on to contrast it with 'the word of
God', which they are rejecting. In Matthew 23 there is a whole
series of examples of Pharisaic tradition, apparently criti-
1 Philo ap. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 8, 7, 6; Josephus, Ant. 13, 297,
408.
 BOOKS AND TRADITIONS 53
cized on the ground not that it is invalid but that it is not
all-important.
When Paul says that he was once 'in regard to the law, a
Pharisee' (Phil. 3 :5) be means, as the parallel in Galatians
I: 14 shows, that he was 'exceedingly zealous for the tradi-
tions of my fatbers'-i.e. the Jewish sages whose sayings are
recorded in a treatise like Pirke Aboth. In other words;he was
well acquainted with the Jewish conception of tradition- one
which, as a Christian, he continued to employ.
Not only Paul, however, but other Christians as well
regarded the transmission of the gospel as a process of
'tradition'. The preface to Luke's gospel contains a des-
cription of 'many' who have tried to compose literary
accounts of the events and have relied upon what was
handed down by 'those who from the beginning were eye-
witnesses and servants of the matter' (1 :3); he himself is
relying on similar sources.
The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are
almost certainly based upon oral traditions, arranged partly
by the evangelists and partly by their predecessors, and
. often tied together by verbal association. We must beware,
however, of making too much of this point. In the 'moment'
of writing something that he remembers, a writer will almost
necessarily rely on association of some sort, and it is often
difficult to decide whether he is relying on something be
himself is arranging, or bas previously arranged, or on some-
thing others have transmitted to him. No matter what con-
clusion we reach on this point, however, the ways in which
various kinds of words of Jesus and stories about him are
preserved in the synoptic gospels strongly suggest that a
process of oral transmission lies behind them. (To some extent
this situation is also characteristic of the Gos~el of John.)1
Cf. C. H . Dodd, Historical Tradition i11 the Fourth Gospel
1
(Cambridge, 1963).
54 THE FORMATION OF TH E NEW TESTAMENT

For more precise information we must tum to the earlier

Pauline epistles. When Paul wrote to the Christians of
Corinth in southern Greece about the year 54 he reminded
them of a tradition which he had received (ultimately) from the
Lord and had previously delivered to them. This traditional
account told of how 'the Lord Jesus, in the night when he
was betrayed, took bread; and when be had given thanks
he broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is
broken for you; do this in remembrance of me"'. The story
continues with a statement about the eucharistic cup.
'Likewise, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup
is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you
drink it, in remembrance of me" ' ( I Cor. 1 r :23-25).
Paul's words do not show that the Christians were
accustomed to recite these words at their celebrations of
the Lor.d's Supper. They do show that a traditional account
of the Last Supper was available to them, and that this
account was set in a context of the Lord's betrayal and
death, with some chronological detail ('the night when he
was betrayed'). Furthermore, the story, whether recited at
the Eucharist or not, was clearly eucharistic in purpose
('do this').
This bit of tradition therefore shows two things: first, it
comes from a narrative at least partly continuous; and second,
it has acquired, either from the beginning or in the course of
transmission, a definite liturgical reference. It is concerned
with what Jesus did and said-in relation to the life of the
Church.
Another significant tradition or group of traditions is to
be found in I Corinthians 15 :3-7. Here Paul speaks again
of what he bad received and had delivered. It consists of
two parts, the first about Jesus' death and resurrection, the
second about those to whom he appeared after the resur-
rection. The first is as follows :
 BOOKS AND TRADITIONS 55
Christ died
for our sins
in accordance with the scriptures;
he was buried;
he was raised
on. the third day
in accordance with the scriptures.

Here we obviously encounter a semi-credal formula not unlike

what we later find in the developed creeds of the Church. Since
Paul says that he received it from tradition, it is clear that be-
fore his time the leaders of the Church, probably at Jerusalem,
had already developed explanations-indeed, authoritative
explanations- of the death and resurrection of Christ. Why
did Christ die? For our sins, and 'in accordance with t he
scriptures'; presumably the primary Old Testament text in
view was Isaiah 53 :6-12, which discusses the relation of the
Suffering Servant's death to the sins of others. It may be that
the clause 'he was buried' was interpreted in the same way
Isaiah 53 :9 says that 'he made his grave with the wicked'.
The last clause undoubtedly refers to the tradition of Christ's
. resurrecti_on on the third day (Sunday after Friday), and
the Old Testament text is probably Hosea 6:2: 'After two
days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up,
and we shall live in his sight.'
This is to say that the tradition which Paul is transmitting
is not a simple 'factual' account, although facts are un-
doubtedly involved; it is a factual account interpreted
theologically with reference to the plan of God as revealed
by the prophets.
With this tradition Paul combines another about the
witnesses to the resurrection. He probably knows two
groups of witnesses, the one headed by Cephas (Peter), the
other by James. The first group consists of Cephas, the
Twelve, and more than 500 Christians, most of whom are
56 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

still alive. The second includes James, 'all the apostles', and
- perhaps- Paul himself. These lists can be examined from
various points of view. First of all, we should say that Paul
is trying to present a complete list. On this basis, it is strange
that he says nothing about Mary Magdalene (John 20:14-18;
Mark 16 :9) and that he includes an appearance to James
which we find described only in the apocryphal Gospel of
the Hebrews. But perhaps it is more important to ask why
he has what he has. Both lists are headed by names of the
principal apostles whom he encountered when he went up
to Jerusalem for what be says was his first visit as a Christian,
about the year 35: Peter and James the Lord's brother (Gal.
1:18-19). We can hardly suppose that at that point they
refrained from speaking of the resurrection to him. The
simplest explanation of the origin of the tradition is that it
was transmitted to him by Peter and James, and that Peter
spoke of himself, the Twelve, and the 500 Christians, while
James spoke of himself and 'all the apostles'-since be was
not one of the Twelve but had come to be regarded as an
apostle. It was natural for Paul to ally himself with the latter
tradition because, like James, he had not been an early
disciple of Jesus. We may well suppose, then, that Paul
arranged the tradition as we find it so that it would end with
James, 'all the apostles' (probably James and the others at
Jerusalem), and himself. No less than Paul, James was
added to the earliest group; no less than Paul, James later
became an apostle.
The tradition about the witnesses to the resurrection,
then, while based upon the evidence of eye-witnesses ('he
appeared' or 'he was seen'), contains some traces of purpose-
ful editing. It does not present a simple account of 'what
actually happened'; it combines such an account with
motives which we probably can identify in Paul's case but
can only surmise in the case of others.
 BOOKS AND TRADITIONS 57
In the earlier Pauline epistles we also encounter traditions
which report what Jesus said, apart from any historical
context. For example, in r Tbessalonians 4:15-18 Paul
justifies his statement that living Christians will not go
before those who have died by appealing to a 'word of the
Lord'. (His point may conceivably be related to the saying
preserved in Mark 9: I : 'There are some of those who stand
here who will not taste death until they have seen the king-
dom of God come with power.') The 'word of the Lord' to
which he refers is this: 'The Lord himself will come down
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel,
and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will
rise first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught
up, together with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in
the air; and thus we shall always be with the Lord.' We con-
clude that this is the 'word of the Lord' from what Paul
adds at the end: 'Encourage one another with these words.'
It would appear that this tradition was known in other
circles, for many of the details in it are to be found, related
to the coming of the Son of Man, in Matthew 24 :30-44-
the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, the
angels, the trumpet-as well as the title 'Lord' obviously
used of the Son of Man (24:42).
Paul continues his letter by telling the Thessalonians that
he has no need to write them about 'times and seasons', for
they know that 'the day of the Lord comes like a thief in
the night' (5:1-2). Similarly in Matthew 24:42- 44 we read
that the Lord, or the Son of Man, will come unexpectedly;
and his coming is compared with that of a thief.
We conclude that this section of I Thessalonians is based
on a collection of sayings of Jesus which Paul not only uses
for the purpose of exhorting the Thessalonians but also
preserves with a high degree of :fidelity. ·
In I Corinthians 7:10-11 he discusses the question of the
58 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

separation of husbands and wives with reference to a com-

mand of the Lord.
To the married I command- not I, but the Lord-that a
wife is not to separate from her husband; if she should separ-
ate, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her
husband; and a husband is not to divorce his wife.

He is obviously referring to a saying of Jesus preserved in

the synoptic gospels (e.g., Mark 10: 11-12). The statements
are identical: separation is forbidden but tolerated; re-
marriage is forbidden but not tolerated. Paul goes on to
make a clear distinction between the teaching of the Lord
and his own inferences based upon it (1 Cor. 7:12): 'to the
rest say I, not the Lord'. Clearly, he was quite capable of
differentiating the tradition as to what Jesus said from the
conclusions he himself drew. And this point is clinched by
what he says in r Corinthians 7:25, 'Concerning virgins I
have no command of the Lord; but I give my judgment as
one who has obtained mercy from the Lord to be trust-
worthy.' He knows the difference between what the Lord
said and what he himself is saying.
Another saying of the Lord is attested in I Corinthians
9:14, where Paul is speaking of the duty of Christian con-
gregations to provide a living for their ministers. 'The Lord
commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should live
from the gospel.' Here he almost certainly has in mind the
saying recorded in Matthew 10:7 as 'the workman is worthy
of his food' and in Luke 10:7 as 'the laborer is worthy of his
wage'. It may well be that he has the whole context of the
saying in mind, for in Matthew it forms part of a charge to the
twelve apostles, and in Luke a charge to 70 (72) disciples.
These examples are not sufficient to show that the Pauline
epistles are saturated with reminiscences of sayings of Jesus.
They are sufficient, however, to show that Paul certainly
 BOOKS AN D TR ADITI ONS 59
knew oral traditions about what Jesus had done and said,
and that quite possibly he knew them as arranged in con-
textual groups. He obviously used them for specific purposes
in writing to his churches, but there is no evidence that he
distorted them. appreciably as he did so. It remains possible
that other passages in his letters are based upon traditions
of the sayings of Jesus, as Resch, Ropes, and Porter long
ago endeavored to show.
Apart from the oral traditions contained in the Pauline
letters-probably earlier than any of the written gospels-
other traditions of what Jesus said and did were obviously
in circulation when, and after, the evangelists wrote. This
point is made clear by several verses in the Gospel of John.

Jesus did many other signs before bis disciples which are not
recorded in this book (20:30).
There are many other things which Jesus did; if they were
recorded individually I do not think that the world itself
would hold the books that would be written (21 :25).

In ad~ition, the book of Acts contains a saying of Jesus

which is recorded neither in Luke nor in any other gospel:
'remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he said, "It is
more blessed to give than to receive" ' (20 :35).
Sayings which occur in the gospels are especially common
in the letter of James. Opinions differ as to how many
allusions there are; Gerhard Kittel thought there might be
18 or 20,1 but we are concerned only with claiming that
there are at least a few- as there are also in r Peter.
T his is to say that in the earliest Church there were not
only written documents but unwritten traditions, and that
the traditions existed before the documents came into
r Zeitschrift fur die ne11testamen1/iche Wissenschaft 43 (1950-51),
83- 84.
60 THE FORMATION OP TSE NEW TESTAMENT

existence. In time the oral traditions faded away, but they

continued to ci(culate not only while the documents were
being written but also while the New Testament was being
formed.
It is important to recognize that sayings traditionally
ascribed to Jesus not only were in circulation at the end of
the first century and the beginning of the second but con-
tinued to be employed by Christi~n writers long afterwards.
Relatively early, as we shall see (Chapters IV and V), they
were appreciatively cited by Jewish Christians like Papias
and the author of 2 Clement, and also by Ignatius, relatively
remote from Jewish Christianity. They were not confined
to any particular group in the early Church, for we en-
counter them in the writings of Justin, Irenaeus, Clement,
and Origen- and later- as well as in Gnostic documents.
For instance, the saying 'There shall be schisms and heresies'
(which may actually be based on I Corinthians I I :18-.19)
is ascribed to Jesus by Justin (Dial. 35, 3), Lactantius, and
the author of the fourth-century treatise De trinitate; it is
also to be found in the Didascalia Apostolorum and in the
Clementine Homilies. 1 Another favorite was 'Seek the great
things and the little things will be added for you'. This occurs
in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Ambrose.1
'Become approved moneychangers' was perhaps the most
popular. It is found in works of the Marcionite Apelles,
Clement, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and later writers,
as well as in the Didascalia and the Clemen.tine Homilies.
Some ascribe it to Jesus, others to Paul. Sometimes it is said
to come from 'scripture', sometimes from the gospel or
the gospels. 3

I A. Resch in Texte 1111d U11tersuc/1w1ge11 30, 3-4 (Leipzig, 1906),

100- 1 (' 75).
2 Ibid., IIT-I2 (# 86).
3 Ibid., 112- 28 (# 87).
 BOOKS AND TRAD.ITIONS

The continued use of oral tradition meant that while the

determination of a New Testament canon was important it
could never be regarded as all-important. Just as among the
Jews a measure of freedom was maintained by means of the
oral, so among-Christians freedom was preserved in the oral
tradition. The authority of 'scripture' was upheld, but it
was a flexible authority because of the oral tradition and
because of the freedom of exegetes to expound both
scripture and tradition. Even though leading churchmen
almost universally rejected apocryphal gospels and other
similar documents, they often continued to accept sayings
of Jesus contained in these gospels and not in the others.
And even Jerome, with all his leanings toward rigorism,
allowed that there might be gold in the 'mud' of the apoc-
ryphal gospels.
 IV
The witness of the Apostolic Fathers:
Jewish Christianity

The most important witnesses to the New Testament books

as used in the early Church are obviously the writings of
the Christians who first wrote after the New Testament
writers. These writings are included in the collection known .
since the seventeenth century (and implicitly so styled a
millennium earlier) as 'the Apostolic Fathers'. The writings
are highly diverse in form and content; they come from
various places under various circumstances and were vari-
ously regarded by Christians after their times. They consist
of (1) a letter of the Roman church to the Corinthian
church, apparently written by a Roman leader named
Clement (r Clement); (2) a sermon probably not by the same
author but handed down with I Clement (2 Clement);
(3) seven letters written from Asia Minor by Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom; (4) a letter to
the Philippians by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; (5) the
account of Polycarp's martyrdom written in the name of
the Christians of Smyrna; (6) the fragments of Polycarp's
contemporary Papias, bishop (?) of Hierapolis in Phrygia;
(7) an epistle ascribed to Paul's fellow-evangelist Barnabas ;
and (8) the Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes which con-
stitute the Shepherd by a Roman Christian named Hermas.
 JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

In the nineteenth century there was discovered the Didache,

or 'teaching of the apostles', a manual of church discipline
from the late first century.
Conceivably one could try to arrange these documents in
roughly chronological order and then trace the development
of the New Testament canon in relation to it. Two factors
stand in our way, however. (r) The dates of these writings
can be ascertained fairly clearly, but-apart from the
Martyrdom of Polycarp-all of them were written during a
generation, between about A.D. 95 and 125- 130. They are
too close in time for us to be sure that there was any definite
development. (2) Their geographical diversity and, more
important, their ideological diversity is such that it would
seem better to treat them as representatives of ways of
thinking, not of particular periods of time. Christianity, it
cannot be said too often, did not develop in a straight line
or even along several parallel lines. The only conspicuous
' tendencies' we can find in the early second century are
related to the influences of Jewish Christianity and Hellen-
istic Christianity-although here too we must avoid over-
rigid classifications. The Apostolic Fathers who oppose
Judaism or Judaizing are often influenced by Jewish ways
of thinking; those who might seem to be very Jewish, in
tum, make use of Greek rhetoric. Furthermore, to draw a
sharp line between 'Jew and Greek' in the early Church is to
misunderstand it completely. Converts to Christianity
entered a community where such lines had been, and were
being, intentionally broken down. In addition, within
Jewish circles Greek ideas were flourishing and in Greek
circles-if we may take some of the more philosophically
minded Gnostics as guides-Jewish ideas were by no means
excluded .
In spite of these qualifications, however, we are likely to
find that certain attitudes toward the Old Testament and
 64 THE FORMATION OF T HE NE\.V TESTAMENT

toward the New Testament books will be more often

expressed by Christians whom we can very broadly treat as
Jewish, while different attitudes will be found among
those farther fro1n Judaism. For this reason we venture to
classify the writings of the Apostolic Fathers in two cate-
.,r gories. The first-the more Jewish-will comprise the
(, Didache, Papias, and the Shepherd of Hermas, along with
the 'mixed' writings ascribed to .Clement. The second-the
more Hellenistic-will consist of the letters of Ignatius and
Polycarp1 and the Epistle of Barnabas. The first group wiJl
be discussed in this chapter and the next; the second, in
Chapter VI.

The Didache

The Didache begins with five chapters of catechetical

instruction, summarized in the sixth as 'this way of. the
teaching'. The five chapters consist of four about the 'way
of life' and one about the 'way of death'. All the allusions
to gospel teaching in the catechetical materials occur in the
first chapter about the way of life, but the passage containing
these allusions is lacking in the Latin version of the Didache
and in the paraphrase of it provided in the fifth century by
Schenute of Atripe in Egypt. On the other hand, this passage
(r :3b-2: t) is found in the only complete manuscript of the
Didache and in a fourth-century Greek papyrus fragment,
as well as in two fourth-century manuals based on the
Didache. If it is an interpolation, it is probably an early one.
The passage is presented as an explanation of the basic
way of life, which is to love God and neigbbor and not to
do to another what you do not want done to yourself (I :2).
' The teaching of these words is this.'
I The Martyrdom of Polycarp is late and casts practically no light
on the question.
 JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

Bless those who curse you and pray for your enemies; fast for
those who persecute you. For what credit is it if you love those
who love you? Do not the gentiles do the same? But as for
you, love those who hate you, and you will have no enemy
(I :3).

The words which the Didacbist uses are not identical with
those found either in Matthew (5 :44, 46, 47; 7 :12) or in
Luke (6:31-33).1 He is either using oral tradition or quoting
from memories of written books; for the moment we shall
not try to decide which. More quotations follow almost
immediately.

If anyone gives you a blow on the right cheek, turn the other
to him too-and you will be perfect. If anyone impresses you
to go one mile, go two with him. If anyone takes your coat,
give him your shirt too. If anyone takes what is yours away
from you, do not ask it back-for you cannot (Did. I :4).

Here the sayings are also found in Matthew (5 :39, 48, 41, 40)
and Luke (6:30), and again they are presented in such a
way that we cannot tell just how the author acquired thetn.
In the conclusion to the section on the ways (6:1) there
seems to be an allusion to Matthew 24 :4. 'See that no one
makes you err' from this way of teaching. The conclusion
suggests that the Didachist is probably using Matthew from
memory and supplementing it with other memories of Luke.
The next two chapters (7-8) of the Didache are concerned
with baptism, fasting, and prayer; in them are very definite
quotations from the Gospel of Matthew. (r) Christians are
to recite all these things (the teaching of chapters 1-6) and
then 'baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit' (7:1). This looks like an echo of Matthew
28: r9, where the disciples are told to make disciples of (or
1 For early Christian use of this teaching see the Appended Note
to Chapter IX.
C
66 THE FO R MA TI ON OF THE NEW TESTAMEN T

teach) alJ the nations and baptize them 'in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. (2) Christians
are not to fast with the 'hypocrites'; here the D idachist is
expounding the doctrine of Matthew 6:16. (3) FinalJy, they
are not to pray as the hypocrites do (Matt. 6 :5), but 'as
the Lord commanded in his G ospel' (8 :2).

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy

kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as
we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evjl, for thine is the power and the glory forever.

This can hardly be anything but the prayer recorded in

M atthew 6:9-13. The presence of the doxology (in this form
also in the Sahidic New Testament) does not prove that the
Didachist is making use of liturgical memories instead of
a gospel, for the gospel be used may already have received
liturgical enrichment.
In the eucbaristic prayers (9-10) there seem to be echoes
of the eucharistic passage in the G ospel of John (chapter 6)
and of t he 'Lord's prayer' in John 17; but they a re not
sufficiently precise for us to claim that the Didachist knew
John. They may reflect a tradition common to him and the
F ourth Evangelist. An explicit quotation, however, occurs
in Didache 9 :5: 'the Lord said, " D o not give the holy thing
to the dogs" ' (Matt. 7 :6).
Again, in the discussion of the ministry which follows
(11- 13) there is a clear allusion to Matthew 12:31 : 'every
sin will be forgiven, but this sin (against the Holy Spirit]
will not be forgiven' (Did. 11 :7). And at the end of the whole
'practical' section (15 :3-4) more echoes are to be found.

Do not reprove one another in wrath, but in peace, as you have

it in the gospel, and let no one speak to anyone who wrongs his
 JEWISH C H RISTIANITY

neighbor, nor let that one be heard among you until he repents.
But perform your prayers and alms.and all your actions as you
have it in the gospel of our Lord.
These words, in part recapitulating what has been said
before (e.g., Did. 14:r-2), contain no direct quotations from
'the gospel' but sum up the teaching of Matthew 5 :22-26
and 18:15- 35°-
Whether or not the last chapter of the Didache (16), a
little apocalypse, was originally a part of the document, it is
clearly based upon a similar apocalypse in Matthew 24.
We conclude, therefore, that while it is possible that some
of what the Didachist quoted from or alluded to may be oral
tradition, it is highly probable that he knew the Gospel of
Matthew and that when he spoke of what Christians 'have
in the gospel' or 'have in the gospel of our Lord' he was
referring to this book. The presence of passages in the first
part of the Didache which seem closer to Luke than to
Matthew may be due to the Didachist's inexact quotations
from memory.
The primary authorities for the Didachist do not seem to
be written books, however, but 'the commandments of the
Lord', to which nothing is to be added and from which
nothing is to be taken away (4:13). These commandments
are certainly expressed in the gospel tradition, whether oral
or written; from this the Didachist derives the 'law of love'
(r.:2; cf. Matt. 22:37- 39 and parallels) and its explanation,
his statement that 'the meek will inherit the earth' (3 :7;
Matt. 5 :5), and the injunctions about baptism, fasting,
prayer (7-8), and reconciliation (14:2), as well as the
eschatological materials of chapter 16.1 The commandments
are also anticipated in the Old Testament, including not only
'ancient prophets' (rr:r r) like Malachi (cit~d in 14:3) and
1 See also r :5: 'he will not come out from there until he pays the
last quadra11s'-based on Matt. 5 :26.
68 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Zechariah (cited in 16 :7) but also later Jewish writings like

Sirach (cited in r :6).1
The very close relationship of the Didachist to the Gospel
of Matthew suggests that he may have been acquainted with
it as a written document, although it may be, as J.-P. Audet
has suggested,2 that be used it thus only in the last six
chapters of his work, earlier relying on oral tradition. His
teaching about apostles and prophets 'in accordance with
the decree of the gospel' (11:3) would thus be based on
Matthaean passages, as would his injunction to 'perform
your prayers and alms and all your actions as you have it
in the gospel of our Lord' (15:4).
Our information, however, permits us to say very little
about the Didachist's views of scripture (a term he never
employs), especially in regard to a New Testament. There
are commandments to which nothing can be added and
from which nothing can be taken away, but since he adds
the negative form of the Golden Rule to the 'law of love'
(1 :2) and does not hesitate to paraphrase the Decalogue
(2 :2-3), he can hardly have regarded books as his primary
authorities, although he does quote what was said both by
the Old Testament prophets and others and by the Lord.
His primary authority, then, must be tradition, whether oral
or written. The freedom with which he usually treats the
tradition reminds us of that found in Jewish schools of his
time-and in Christian schools as well.

Papias of Hierapolis

Another witness to the continued exaltation of tradition in

Jewish Christian circles is Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia-
On the form of the quotation see C. H. Turner in Journal of
1
Theological Studies 7 (1905-06), 593-95.
2 La Didac/11!: instructio11s des ap6tres (Paris, 1958), 104-20.
 JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

according to late tradition, perhaps based on conjecture,

bishop there-who was a contemporary of Polycarp and
probably flourished early in the second century. He wrote five
books of Exegeses of the Dominica/ Oracles, a title which
probably refers to Old Testament predictions and prefigura-
tions although, since most of the work has disappeared,
we cannot be sure that this is correct. The seventh-century
writer Anastasi us of Sinai tells us that he referred the creation
story to Christ and the Church and the story of paradise
to the Church. If Anastasius was right (and we have no
reason to question his statement), Papias obviously regarded
Genesis, and along with it the rest of the Old Testament, as
sacred scripture containing prefigurations of the gospel.
In the preface to bis Exegeses (quoted by Eusebius, H.
E. 3, 39, 3-4) he stated that he was concerned not with the
quantity of the tradition he could obtain but with its quality
as derived from the Lord. In addition, be valued oral
tradition much more highly than what was written in books.
This tradition came from 'a living and continuing voice',
which Papias evidently regarded as free from error. For this
. reason he made an effort to find out about the oral teaching
of the elders or disciples of the Lord, such as Andrew, Peter,
Philip, Thomas, James, John (these names occur in the
Gospel of John, in this order), and Matthew. He wanted
to find out what these disciples said and what 'Aristion and
the elder John, disciples of the Lord, are saying'. He thus
differentiated men of the past and men still alive-and he
clearly was acquainted with two men named John, one an
apostle (though Papias does not use the title), the other an
elder. His statement suggests that books containing tradi-
tions derived at least from John and Matthew are in exist-
ence, but he wants to go behind books to tradition. According
to Eusebius, Papias frequently mentioned bis' Iiving inform-
ants by name.
70 T HE FO RMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

. The value of the traditions he thus acquired has been

assessed differently by various authors. Eusebius was most
unenthusiastic about them. They included a miracle story
about the daughters of Philip (the evangelist of Acts 21 :8,
whom Papias-or Eusebius-may have identified with the
apostle), a contemporary resurrection account, a tale about
Justus Barsabbas' safely drinking poison (cf. Acts I :23),
some 'strange parables and instructions of the Savior', and
other rather mythical materials. What Eusebius especially
disliked was the notion that there would be a thousand-year
period on earth after the resurrection from the dead (Rev.
20:4-6); he suggested that Papias took literally what the
apostles meant figuratively. Irenaeus, on the other hand, did
not hesitate to quote Papias for what the Lord had said
about the miraculous fertility of the earth in the days to
come. In this future golden age there would be vines each
one of which would produce grapes 10,000 to the fifth power;
and each grape would give 25 measures of wine-apparently
about 225 gallons ! 'And when one of the saints takes a
cluster, another cluster will cry out, "I am better; take me;
bless the Lord through me !" ' All the rest of the vegetable
creation would be similarly productive, and the animals
would become herbivorous, peaceable, and subject to man-
kind. According to Papias, the traitor Judas expressed his
doubts about this prediction, but the Lord replied, 'Those
who come in that day will behold'.1
The singular feature of the quotation is that, although in
Papias' narrative the prediction has been given a framework
which includes a discussion between Jesus and Judas
Iscariot, it actually consists of an almost exact transcription
of the Jewish apocalypse known as 2 Baruch (29: 6).
Perhaps this is not a complete surprise; we have seen that
Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5, 33, 3- 4. According to Papias, the prophecy
I
came to him from John the Lord's disciple.
 JEWISH CHRISTIANITY 71
the author of Barnabas regarded 2 Baruch as the work of a
prophet; but he did not ascribe Baruch's words to Jesus.
Papias' words suggest that his zeal for oral tradition was
rather excessive.
When we turn to the written books with which he was
acquainted, we should suggest-as we have already inti-
mated-that he knew the Gospel of John; he also refers to
Christ as 'the Truth' (cf. John 14:6). He explicitly refers to
books composed by Mark and Matthew. In discussing Mark
he states (following 'the elder') that the evangelist, Peter's
interpreter, wrote down accurately and completely what
Peter taught about the Lord's sayings and doings- but not
'in order' (either rhetorical or chronological). Apparently
Mark's order has been criticized, presumably in relation to the
Gospel of Joho.1 As for Matthew, he 'composed the oracles
in a [the?] Hebrew dialect, but each translated them as he
was able'. This enigmatic sentence (1) refers not to sayings
of Jesus (logoi) but to Old Testament predictions (logia),
and (2) suggests that various Greek writings similar to one
another and probably ascribed to Matthew are in circula-
tion.2 Papias does not want to decide which one is the most
reliable. He treats all as translations, just as he treats Mark
as a trans!ation of Peter's teaching.
This information shows that Papias knew the gospels of
Mark and Matthew and it also suggests that he did not
regard them as scripture. His matter-of-fact discussions con-
tains nothing about the inspiration of the evangelists. A
story about the death of Judas, relayed by Apollinarius of
Laodicea in the late fourth century, may be intended to
supplement the story of his death in Acts, but this is highly
uncertain.
1 Since the arrangement of Mark is close to that of Matthew and
Luke.
2 One may be the Gospel of the Hebrews; see below.
72 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

According to Eusebius (H. E. 3, 39, 17), Papias also made

use of I John and I Peter, and told a story about a woman
'accused of many sins before the Lord' which was in the
apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews. It is sometimes suggested
that this is the story now found in John 7:53-8:11, but the
woman there described was accused not of many sins but
of one. Later Christian writers tell us that Papias regarded
the Revelation of John as 'trustworthy', presumably mean-
ing 'inspired'.
~ What we find in Papias, then, is a combination of three
or more written gospels (Matthew=Hebrews [?], Mark,
and John) with a mass of Jewish-Christian oral traditions
and, in additon, I John and I Peter. There is no trace of the
Pauline epistles, and these epistles may be the writings which
Papias regards as least acceptable. When he says that unlike
'the many' be does not take pleasure in those who say a
great deal, he may have Paul in mind. Following Eusebius'
lead we may suggest that if Papias read the Pauline letters
be probably could not, or would not, understand them
(cf. 2 Peter 3:16).
Papias' limited 'New Testament' is significant only in its
reflection of usage in a rather backward community, where
devotion to oral tradition prevented the development of a
clear idea of canonicity. Indeed, to ascribe a New Testament
canon of any sort to Papias would be a mistake. Just as for
contemporary Jewish exegetes, the only written authority
for him is the Old Testament. With it there is· another
authority, the oral Law-for Papias expressed in the
Christian traditions.

Hermas of Rome

Another representative of Jewish Christianity in the early

second century is Herrnas, who wrote his Shepherd at Rome
 JEW IS H C H RISTI ANITY 73
perhaps between 90 and 120 or so-unless, as S. Giet has
recently argued,1 the work was produced by three different
writers. Since the dates which Giet assigns to his authors are
rather tentative, and since all the authors reflect Jewish
Christian ideas current at Rome, we shaJl not go into the
question of authorship-although all the positive evidence
for Hermas' knowledge of New Testament books comes
from the 9th Similitude, assigned by Giet to Hennas II.
As a whole the Shepherd is full of allusions to Old Testa-
ment phrases, and its apocalyptic framework seems to be
based upon that of 2 Esdras. In Mand. 4, 3, r Hennas (or
Hermas III) says that he has 'heard from some teachers that
there is no second repentance beyond the one given when
we went down into the water and received remission of our
former sins'. The teachers may well have been relying on
Hebrews (6:4-6)-a book, as we have seen, well known to
Clement of Rome- but Hennas probably does not know
the book.
It is in the 9th Similitude that we find clear teaching about
entering into the kingdom of God by receiving the Name of
the Son of God (9, 12)-teaching which seems to reflect
John 3:3, 5. Hermas identifies the Name of the Son with
the person of the Son and with a 'gate' to the kingdom. With
this identification we may compare John 10:7-9 (Christ is
the door; he who enters through him will be saved) and
14:6 (no one comes to the Father but through me).
Teaching about the kingdom of God from the synoptics
is reflected in Similitude 9, 20. There we read about thorns
as those involved in business and about business men as
choked by their work. Hermas has become confused by his
memories of the parable of the sower (Mark 4 :7; Matt.
13:7) and its explanation (Mark 4:18-19; Matt. 13:22); he
finally achieves clarity when he recalls the definite statement
1 Hermas et /es Pasteurs (Paris, 1963).
74 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

of Mark 10:23 (cf. Matt. 19:23) about the difficulty with

which the rich will enter into the kingdom of God.
Finally (Sim. 9, 29, 30) he deals with another gospel
statement about entering the kingdom, this time from
Matthew 18:3: 'Unless you turn and become like the child-
ren you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
Christians must be 'like children' living free from wicked-
ness in a state of innocence. Hermas seems to be combining
the gospel saying with something like the word of Paul in
I Corinthians 14 :20. 1
He may or may not know I Corinthians, but it is almost
certain that he knows Ephesians. In Similitude 9, 13 he
twice speaks of Christians as becoming or possessing 'one
spirit and one body' (Eph. 4 :4); in Similitude 9, 17, 3 he
says that baptized Christians have 'one understanding and
one mind, and their faith became one and their love one';
similarly in Similitude 9, 18, 4 the purified Church will be
' one body, one understanding, one mind, one faith, one
love'-and these passages closely resemble Ephesians 4 :3-6.
Since the only book to which Hermas explicitly refers is
the Jewish apocalypse known as the Book of Eldad and
Modat (Vis. 2, 3, 4), it is not surprising that New Testament
quotations or allusions are so scarce. Indeed, it is rather
remarkable that in a Jewish Christian context we find
allusions to Ephesians, although at Rome Christians un-
doubtedly possessed not only gospels but also Pauline
epistles (see below, on 1-2 Clement). That Hermas regarded
these documents as scripture is most unlikely. The only
inspired works to which he refers are Eldad and Modat and
the little book which he was given in a vision and told to
copy (Vis. 2). Since, however, he describes Eldad and Modat
as 'having prophesied to the people in the wilderness' it
I See 'Like Children', Harvard Theological Review 39 (1946),
71-73; also Papias, frag. 8 Bihlmeyer.
 JEWISH CHRISTIANITY 75
would appear that he was acquainted with the Old Testament
(Num. II :26). But his fondness for apocalyptic thought
and literature takes him far beyond any concern for ideas
of canonicity.
In his discussion of the little book revealed to him, how-
ever, we find at least the seed of such ideas. Hermas is to
make the words of his copy of the book known 'to all the
elect'- but he is to do so through the constituted authorities
of the Roman church. One copy of the book is to be trans-
mitted through Clement 'to the cities outside, for this is his
function'; the other is to be used by Grapte for exhorting
the widows and orphans; but Hermas himself is to read the
book with 'the presbyters who govern the church' (Vis. 2,
4, 3). To be sure, the primary test of prophetic authenticity
is provided by the life and deeds of the prophet (Mand. I I),
but Hermas recognizes the importance of 'the apostles and
bishops and teachers and deacons ... who always agreed
among themselves and bad peace among themselves and
listened to one another' (Vis. 3, 5, I).
It would appear, then, that if Hermas had a canon (as he
does not) it would be one recognized as such by these
bishops, teachers, and deacons, or the presbyters who
govern the church. To say this, however, is not to say that
we have any clear idea as to what would have been in it. If
it included Matthew and Ephesians it doubtless included
other Pauline epistles and perhaps other gospels.
In general, however, it is clear that for Jewish Christians
of the first and second centuries the Bible consisted of the
Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. This
was their primary written authority. Along with it went
traditions, chiefly oral, about the sayings of Jesus. Anything
else was secondary; the written gospels were not usually
regarded as authoritative writings. What counted was their
content as reflecting tradition.
76 THE FORMATION OF THB NEW TESTAMENT

Beyond these witnesses to Jewish Christianity in the early

second century lie the views of those whom Ignatius of
Antioch regards as 'Judaizers'. These Christians, whose
views he discusses most fully in his letter to the Philadel-
phians, similarly insisted upon the primacy of the Old
Testament as a written authority. It will be most con-
venient, however, to consider their views along with those
of Ignatius himself (Chapter VI). •
 V
The witness of the Apostolic Fathers:
Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity

It is easy enough to classify the Didache, Papias, and Her-

mas together. All alike stand close to Judaism and reflect a
strong continuity with Jewish ideas of the Old Testament
and apocalyptic literature; all lay emphasis on tradition
rather than the books of what was to be the New Testament.
The situation is harder to deal with when we turn to two
documents of the Roman church- Roman, but quite remote
from Hermas-at the end of the first century and the begin-
ning of the second. The first of these, and by all odds the
more important of the two, is the letter from 'the church of
God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which
sojourns at Corinth', apparently written toward the end of
the last decade of the first century. To be sure, the author ot
the letter is not named as Clement until we reach the lasf
third of the second century ; but this fact proves nothing,
since there is very little Christian literature in existence from
an earlier period, and it is fairly obvious that churches as such
do not write letters; individuals write them in the church's
name. We shall refer to the author of the letter as Clement.
His primary authority is the Old Testament, to which he
refers as 'God's oracles' (19:1) or 'sacred scriptures' (53:1).
It is fairly clear that in many instances he has looked up the
78 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

passages which he quotes, word for word, from the Greek

Bible. It is also possible, however, that he has made use of
one or more anthologies in which Old Testament passages
had already been combined before his time. Such passages
are probably to be found where he runs citations together
or locates passages rather vaguely as 'somewhere'. Of course
he may be quoting from memory; but the combination
of exactness and rather wild inexactness may perhaps be
best explained as due to his use of various sources. 1
If this is, or may be, the case with Clement's use of the
Old Testament, it is easier to understand the way in which
he makes use of some passages parallel to the gospel
tradition. Here there is an important passage in which be
urges Christians to 'do what is written' (13 :r). By 'what is
written' he apparently has in mind primarily the Old Testa-
ment examples of 'faith and hospitality' or 'hospitality and
piety' which he has just provided in his letter; but he goes
on to explain what the Holy Spirit says- in Jeremiah 9:
23-24. 'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, or the
strong man of his strength, or the rich man of his riches; but
be who boasts, let him boast of the Lord, to seek him out and
do judgment and righteousness.' An interesting feature of
this quotation is that the words ' Let him boast of the Lord'
are found not in our text of the Greek Old Testament but
in Paul's quotations from it in r Corinthians I :3 r and 2
Corinthians ro: 17. Conceivably Clement mixed up the
quotations from Jeremiah and from Paul; more probably
he was using an Old Testament text like Paul's-perhaps an
anthology. He then continues with the sentence interrupted
by the words about the Holy Spirit and the quotation from
Jeremiah. 'Let us do what is written ... especially remem-
bering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spoke when
On this point cf. R. M. Grant- H. H. Graham, The Apostolic
1
Fathers II (New York, 1965), 10-13.
 HELLENISTIC- JEWISH CHRISTIAN I TY 79
he was teaching gent1eness and patience' (13 :1, at the end).
T he structure of the sentence clearly suggests that the words
of Jesus (introduced by the formula found in Acts 20:35
and repeated in I Clement 46:7) a re included ('especially')
in what is wrjtten. Christians are to 'walk in obedience to
his holy words, in humility, for the holy Word says, " On
whom shall I look but on the meek and gentle and him who
trembles at my oracles" ' ( 13 :3-4). Here is something of a
problem. The word 'word' or 'words' occurs so often that
it is hard to tell just what is meant. But it would seem that
the most natural explanation of the passages is that all the
'words' in question come from written documents; the last
is from I saiah 66 :2, quoted rather freely.
But what were the words of the Lord Jesus? According
to Clement, he spoke thus:

Be merciful,/so that/you may obtain mercy;

forgive,/so that/it may be forgiven you;
as you do,/thus/it will be done to you;
as you give,/thus/it will be given to you;
as you judge,/thus/you will be judged;
as yo.u are kind,/thus/kindness will be shown you;
with the measure you measure,/by it/it will be measured to
you.

These sayings are ultimately based on something much like

what we find in various verses of Matthew (5 :7, 6: 14-15,
7:1- 2, 12) and Luke (6:31, 36-38). But they are certainly not
derived directly from Matthew or Luke, or even acombination
of the two. The structure present in Clement's formulation
suggests that he is following some source-not unlike the
Old Testament anthology he may have used-already com-
posed for instruction or liturgical usage or both.1
1 Cf. H. Koester, Synoptische Oberlieferungen bei den Apostolischen
Vatern (Berlin, 1957), 13-16.
80 THE FORMATION OF T H E NEW TESTAMENT

It might be that Clement's reference to the Corinthians as

having stored up Christ's words in their hearts and keeping
his sufferings before their eyes (2:1) would imply that they
relied on oral tradition. But since the sufferings were only
figuratively before their eyes (cf. Gal. 3:1) unless they were
reading about them, and since it is perfectly possible to
remember what one has read in a book, it would appear
that their knowledge of Christ's words and deeds could have
come through reading as well as through listening.
There is another passage in I Clement in which Ch1·istians
are called to 'remember the words of the Lord Jesus'
(46:7-8). The passage begins with a quotation from some
apocryphal book (46:2),1 continues with Psalm 17:26, and
proceeds with definite allusions to Ephesians 4 :4-6 and
Romans 12:5. Then come the words of Jesus.

Woe to that man: it were good for him if he had not been born
rather than to offend one of my elect; it were better for him
to be girded with a millstone and to be drowned in the sea
than to pervert one of my elect.

These words contain echoes of Matthew (18 :6, 26 :24) and

Luke (17 :2, 22 :22). Perhaps the verses were brought together
in part, by verbal similarity. But we do not know whether
the bringing together was done by Clement on this occasion
or some earlier one, or by some predecessor. In view of what
we have already seen in the letter, it seems likely that he is
quoting from a gospel-like book but perhaps not from our
written gospels.
From Clement, then, we seem to see that at Rome in his
time there was a book of the teaching of Jesus, perhaps
including an account of his sufferings (death, and therefore
resurrection). This book was obviously much like our
1 See also Hermas, Vis. 3, 6, 2 (AL 1); Sim. 8, 8, 1.
 HELLENISTIC - JEWISH CHRISTI AN ITY 8I

gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, but cannot be pre-

cisely identified with them.
Clement's testimony about the Pauline epistles is more
definite. He indubitably knows I Corinthians, for he writes
to the Corinthians as follows:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did
he first write you at 'the beginning of the gospel' [Phil. 4:15] ?
With true spiritual insight he wrote you about himself and
Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had made your-
selves partisans (1 Cor. I :12, 3:22] (47: 1- 3).

In addition, there are five quite definite allusions to the first

four chapters of I Corinthians in other passages in I Clement
as well as five to chapter I 2, a paraphrase of I 3 :4-7, and
three to chapter 15. Fewer allusions, eleven in all, are made
to Romans, but one of them is especially significant. I
Clement 35:5- 6 contains a paraphrase of Romans I :29-32;
then the author continues, 'For the scripture says'-and a
quotation from Psalm 49 (50) follows. This definitely implies
that for Clement the Pauline epistles are not scripture,
. though they are obviously authoritative. It is fairly clear
that he also knows Galatians, Philippians and Ephesians,
probably also James and I Peter.
It is important to observe that in I Clement we find the
earliest definite allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews.
These occur throughout the first half of the letter and reach
a climax in the 36th-chapter, which consists almost entirely
of echoes from Hebrews; thereafter there are no such
allusions.
Morton Smith1 and others have argued that Clement's
account of Peter and Paul in the 5th chapter is chiefly based
on the book of Acts, and it may be added that I Clement
2: 1 contains an allusion to the saying of Jesus found m
I New Testament Studies 1 (1960-61), 86-88.
82 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Acts 20:35, while the formula used in Acts recurs in 1

Clement 13:1 and 46:7. Moreover, the description of the
apostolic succession in 1 Clement 42:3-4 seems to contain
echoes of various passages from Luke-Acts and the Pauline
epistles.1 In my opinion Clement definitely knew the book.
One more book known to Clement deserves mention.
This is the 'scripture' which he quotes against the 'double-
minded' (23:3- 4), probably a Jewish apocryphal document. 2
A slightly different, and longer, version of the same quota-
tion occurs in 2 Clement 11 :2-4, where it is ascribed to 'the
prophetic discourse'.
It is quite evident that for Clement, a Christian deeply
influenced by Jewish ways of thinking even though he often
expresses his thought in ways related to Greek rhetoric and
even popular philosophy, the primary written authority is
the Greek Old Testament, along with some Jewish apocry-
phal writings from which he derives a saying of Moses
(17 :6), the 'scripture' about double-mindedness (23 :3-4),
and such a saying as 'Cling to the saints' (46:2). He certainly
knows the book of Judith and uses it, along with Esther, to
provide an example of 'womanly manliness' (55 :3-6). He
seems to quote from an apocryphal version of Ezekiel, but
this may be known to him through the anthology· which we
have suggested he used.
He never refers to New Testament writings 'as scripture,
and the one instance in which he employs the word 'gospel'
(47:2) reflects Philippians 3:15, where-as in Clement's own
sentence- the word means 'proclamation'. On the other
hand, the deeds (especially the sacrifice) of Jesus and his
words are exceedingly important to Clement, and he speaks

1 Luke 1:1; Acts 1:3, 2:4; Luke 19:11; Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 16:15;
Phil. 1 :1.
2 E. Nestle in Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft I
(1900), 180.
 HELLENISTIC-JEWISH CHRISTIANITY 83
three times of remembering the words of Christ or of tbe
Lord Jesus. In two of the three instances it seems likely that
he has written records in mind, as is the case (though less
certainly) in the third instance. If he knew Acts, be probably
knew Luke.
When he speaks of 'the epistle' of Paul to the Corinthians
(47:1) he certainly does not mean that Paul wrote only one
epistle; his allusions to other epistles conclusively prove that
he knew a larger collection, although we cannot be sure that
it included 2 Corinthians. Along with it, though perhaps not as
part of the collection, went the Epistle to the Hebrews. There
are no convincing traces of the Pastoral Epistles; perhaps at
this time they were in circulation only in Asia Minor and
possibly in Crete, the areas to which they were addressed.
These books, gospels, Acts, and epistles alike, possessed
authoritative meaning because they recorded the teaching
and the deeds of Christ and the apostles. They were not
regarded as 'scripture', however, and in Clement's time and
geographical setting (Rome and also Corinth) there was no
notion of a New Testament canon comparable to that of
. the Old Testament.

The other book ascribed to Clement is essentially a sermon

delivered in a Christian assembly at some unknown time.
If we allow for the difference between an official letter and a
sermon it becomes possible, but by no means certain, that
the two documents were written by the same person. The
general outlook of 2 Clement is not remarkably different
from that of 1 Clement, and it would appear that both
reflect the Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity present at Rome
(and, unfortunately for our analysis, probably elsewhere)
early in the second century. It is significant that in both
documents we find quotations, made independently, from
the Jewish apocryphal writing which I Clement (23 :3) calls
84 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

'scripture' and 2 Clement (11 :2) calls 'the prophetic word'.

Moreover, in 2 Clement as in I Clement there are allusions
to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
and Hebrews, as well as (perhaps) to James and I Peter. In
other words, a common 'library' seems to underlie the two
works.
Furthermore, the words ascribed to Christ or the Lord
or even 'God' (13:4; cf. 1:1) in form resemble the words
cited in I Clement; they reflect either a combination of
Matthew with Luke or a tradition somewhat independent
of both gospels. In one instance, however, we read (2:4),
after a quotation from Isaiah, that 'another scripture also
says, "I come not to call righteous but sinners" '-and this
quotation occurs in Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17. This
passage proves that, unlike the earlier Clement, the author
of 2 Clement regards some gospel (perhaps Matthew, usually
better known than Mark) as scripture.
We might suppose, then, that 2 Clement would reflect
the creation of a definite New Testament canon, at least as
far as the gospels are concerned. Such does not seem to be
the case, however, for our canonical gospels are certainly
not the only authorities he uses as sources for the sayings
of Jesus. In chapter 4, section 5 he quotes something the
Lord said, and while it resembles what we find in Matthew
7 :22 and Luke I 3 :27 it is not very close to either verse. In
chapter 5 he goes on to provide a similar quotation, this
time presented in dialogue form.

The Lord said, 'You will be 'Behold, I send you forth like
like lambs in the midst of lambs in the midst of wolves'
wolves.' (Luke 10:3)
Peter answered him and
said,
'If then the wolves rend the
lambs?'
 HELLBNIST1C-JEWISH C HR ISTIANI T Y 85
Jesus said to Peter, ('I say to you my friends',
'Let the lambs not fear the Luke, 12 :4)
wolves after they [the
lambs] die;
and you, fear not those 'Fear not those who kill the
who kill you and cannot do body and afterwards have
more to you, nothing more to do . . .
but fear him who, after you fear him who, after killing
die, [you],
has power over soul and has power ('soul and body',
body to cast them into the Matt. 10 :28) to cast into th_e
gehenna of fire.' gehenna' (Luke 12 :4-5) ('of
fire', Matt. 5 :22 , 18 :9)

It is obvious that Lucan and Matthean expressions are

combined and that, in addition, they are provided with a
setting quite similar to the dialogue of Jesus and Peter about
lambs in John 21 :15- 17. Either synoptic traditions or these
synoptic gospels have been given dialogue form in a manner
reminiscent of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (see
Chapter VII). Unfortunately we cannot tell whether the
quotation in 2 Clement comes from oral tradition or from
·such an apocryphal gospel.
Another statement, in chapter 12, is considerably farther
from the synoptic gospels or John. Here we read that 'when
the Lord himself was asked by someone when his kingdom
would come, he said, "When the two will be one and the
outside as the inside and the male with the female neither
male nor female" '. Something close to this is found in the
Gospel of Thomas (p. 85, lines 20-35), and Clement of
Alexandria (Str. 3, 92, 2) quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians
to this effect, giving Jesus' reply to a similar question:

When you tread on the garment of shame and when the two
become one and the male with the female neither male nor
female.
86 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW T ESTAMENT

But the author of 2 Clement is certainly not following the

Gospel of the Egyptians; for him the flesh is no garment of
shame but a temple of God (9:3). He must be relying on
some other, less 'Gnostic' book, or on oral tradition. But
it is obvious that whether book or tradition, the Lord's words
conveyed by it are just as authoritative as the saying con-
tained in 'scripture'.
A rather obscurely allegorical passage in chapter 14
enables us to see somewhat more clearly what authorities
are important for this author.

I do not suppose that you are ignorant [a Pauline expression,

Rom. 1:13, 11:25, I Cor. 10:1, 12:1, 1 Thess. 4:13] that the
living 'Church is the body of Christ' (Eph. 5 :23). For the
scripture says, 'God made man male and female' (Gen. I :27):
the male is Christ, the female is the Church (cf. Eph. 5 :32).
And furthermore the books and the apostles declare that the
Church is not merely present (cf. Gal. 4 :25) but was from the
beginning (cf. Eph. 3:9-II, 5:31-32). For it was spiritual, like
our Jesus, and 'was made manifest in t!ie last days' ( 1 Pet.
I :20) to save us. The Church, as being spiritual, was made
manifest in the flesh of Jesus (cf. Eph. 5 :29).

Scripture obviously includes the Old Testament, and some

gospel-writings as well (as we have learned from 2 :4); but the
letters of the apostles (apparently Paul and Peter, at least)
are not scripture. It is hard to tell what 'the books and the
apostles' means. Conceivably the phrase is used for 'the books
of the apostles and the apostles as the authors of books'.
The limits of the canon in 2 Clement are fairly clear. On
the one side stands scripture; the Old Testament and some
gospel-book. On the other, the Pauline epistles are not
scripture. The middle ground is harder to define. Traditions
about Jesus have the same authority as his scriptural sayings,
but in 2 Clement there is certainly no idea of a New Testa-
ment canon.
 HELLENISTI C-JEWISH CHRISTlANlTY 87
The principal difference between I and 2 Clement, then,
lies in the one instance in which 2 Clement refers to a gospel
saying as 'scripture'. Such an identification is not to be found
in I Clement, and it would seem, therefore, that in 2 Clement
we are moving.toward an idea of New Testament books as
scripture like the Old Testament, especially since the sayings
of Jesus, at least partly known in written form, can· be as-
cribed to God. The situation remains fluid, however.
Presumably the Jewish Christians in the Roman community
(if 2 Clement comes from Rome) still believed that the term
'scripture' should be reserved for the Old Testament and
the apocryphal literature transmitted along with it.
 VI
The witness of the Apostolic Fathers:
Hellenistic Christianity

I n this chapter, as we have indicated, we intend to discuss

the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, and 'Barnabas'. (r)
I gnatius was bishop of Antioch early in the second century,
and on his way through Asia Minor to martyrdom at Rome
be wrote two kinds of letters: those to correspondents whose
acquaintance be had made during his journey, and the one
to tbe Roman church, asking not to be saved from death.
These letters were collected by Polycarp of Smyrna after
Ignatius' departure. (2) Somewhat later, Polycarp wrote
either one or two letters to tbe church at Philippi. It has been
thought that he wrote two because at one point (9:1-2) he
speaks as if Ignatius were dead and at another point (13 :2)
he asks for news about him. I t may be that the passages can
be reconciled; but even if they cannot, there is no reason to
assume that the later letter is much later. (3) The Epistle of
Barnabas is very hard to date; its use of 2 Esdras and 2
Baruch suggests the early second century, while the re-
building of the temple after a war (16 :4) probably suggests
a period between A.O. 130 and 135. The documents in
question thus pr obably extend over a period of twenty to
twenty-five years-no more.
Of the three authors involved, I gnatius is unquestionably
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY

the most interesting and, indeed, exciting. The fact that

scholars in the twenties accused him of being an 'obsessed
neurotic' is hardly a point against him at a time when
psychological insight is more widespread. Certainly he had a
'martyr-complex', since he was determined, as a Christian
already condemned to death, to be a martyr. For our purposes
it is almost equally important to observe that he represents
gentile Christianity, deeply influenced by Greek rlietoric,1
and moves toward the formation of a New Testament
because of his insistence on the primacy of the gospel.
One of Ignatius' most striking characteristics was that he
identified his life as Christian, bishop, and sacrificial martyr
with the life and work of Jesus and of the apostle Paul. This
fact has the greatest importance for his use, possible and
probable, of various New Testament books. The books he
found most important were the ones in which he found
statements relevant to his conception of himself and of
fellow-Christians.
We begin with the clearest possible testimonies, those in
which he mentions the apostle Paul and the relation of
Christians to him. lo Ephesians r r :2 he speaks of the
Ephesian Christians, who 'always agreed with the apostles
in the power of Jesus Christ'. Such agreement is obviously
reflected in Paul's farewell discourse at Miletus with t he
presbyter-bishops of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:18-35),
and it is clear from what Ignatius goes on to say (Eph. 12)
that he has Paul in mind. First he imitates the Pauline anti-
theses; then he explicitly calls the Ephesians 'fellow-initiates
with Paul, the sanctified, the well attested, the one worthy
of blessing- in whose footsteps may I be found when I
attain to God2-who in every letter makes mention of you
I On Ignatius' style see H. Riesenfeld in Texte und Untersuchungen
79 (1961), 312-22.
2 1 Peter 2 :21 speaks of following in Christ's footsteps of suffering.
90 THE FO R MATION OF THE NEW TESTA MENT

in Christ Jesus'. Paul had been given the sanctity, the attes-
tation, and the blessing potentially shared by all Christians
(and Ignatius is deeply concerned with sharing in the univer-
sal Christian goals, Eph. r r :2, Smyrn. 7: 1), but clearly he
had already attained to God (cf. the anticipation of this in
Phil. 3 :13-14) and Christians could be proud of being
'fellow-initiates' (Phil. 4:12) with him. Like Peter, Paul was
a n apostle; be was free ( 1 Cor. 9: I) as a freedman of Christ
(r Cor. 7:22), as Ignatius says (Rom. 4:3). I gnatius is like
him; just as for Paul the world bas been crucified through
Christ (Gal. 6 :14), so for Ignatius his 'lust' (eros) has been
crucified and he no longer desires the world (R om. 7:2).
Just as Paul no longer lives, but Christ lives in him (G al.
2 :20), so I gnatius has Christ within himself (Rom. 6 :3), and
as Paul can say, 'Not I but the grace of God' (1 Cor. 15 : 10),
so Ignatius can say, 'Not I but the love of Jesus Christ'
{Trail. 6: 1) or 'not I but Jesus Christ' (Philad. 5 :1).
This does not mean that Ignatius regards himself as an
apostle. As for Clement of R ome, for him the apostles belong
to a past historical period. They were subject to Christ a nd to
the Father (Magn. 13:2; cf. I Clem. 42 :r-2), and the Lord,
united with the Father, acted through them (Magn . 7 :1).
They constituted a council or a college, analogous to the
presbyters of Ignatius' own day (Magn. 6: r; Trail. 2 :2, 3 :r ;
Philad, 5:1; Smyrn. 8:1). Like the Lord, they gave decrees,
still valid in the Church (Maga. 13:r). At the same time, the
parallel presbyters/apostles means that their work still con-
tinues, and Ignatius describes the vocation of the bishop
of Philadelphia in terms based on Paul's description of his
own calling (Philad. 1:1; Gal. 1 :1).
This is to say that Ignatius takes very seriously Paul's
words in r Corinthians r I : r : 'be imitators of me, as I am
of Christ'; and in 1 Thessalonians 1 :6: 'you became imitators
of us and of the Lord, receiving the word in great t ribulation
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY 91
with joy in the Holy Spirit'. Thus Ignatius urges the Ephe-
sians to be imitators of the Lord (Eph. 10:3) and immedi-
ately proceeds to quote Pauline counsel (1 Cor. 6:7) about
suffering voluntarily; he urges the Philadelphians to be
imitators of Jesus Christ (Philad. 7 :2)-as he was an imitator
of his Father (a theme both Pauline and Johannine). And
as Paul speaks of imitating God 'as Christ loved ·us and
gave himself for us' (Eph. 5: 1-2), so Ignatius can tell of
imitating God by giving (Trail. 1 :1) and by self-giving
(Eph. r:r; Rom. 6:3).
To be like Paul and like Christ is to offer oneself as a
sacrifice. Paul has been granted the gift not only of believing
in Christ but also of suffering for him (Phil. I :29); indeed,
he is being 'poured out' as a sacrificial offering for the
Philippians' faith (2:17); he hopes to 'gain Christ and be
found in him' (3 :8-9) and to 'know him and the power of
his resurrection and fellowship ,vith his sufferings, con-
formed to his death, if somehow I may attain to resurrection
from the dead' (3:10-11). Paul rejoices in his sufferings on
behalf of the Colossians and fills up 'what is Jacking in the
tribulations of Christ ... on behalf of his body, the Church'
(Col. I :24).1
Ignatius regards his own work as substantially identical
with Paul's. He is eager to suffer (Trail. 4 :2), indeed to suffer
with Jesus Christ (Smym. 4:2). By his suffering he will attain
to God (Philad. 7: 1) and to the resurrection (Rom 4 :3). He
is dying for God (Rom. 4:1); be desires to 'be poured out'
as a libation for God and through dying rise again (Rom.
2:2), and to be found to be a sacrifice (Rom. 4:2).
Like Paul, Ignatius uses the word peripsema of himself
(Eph. 8:1, 18:1; 1 Cor. 4:13). This word has sacrificial over-
tones absent in Paul's letter but fully present in Ignatius'
mind; he is a victim on behalf of the Ephesian Christians.
1 See also Eph. 3:1, 13; 2 Tim. 2:10-12, 4 :6.
92 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TES T AMENT

Similarly he can speak of purifying or consecrating himself

for his readers (Eph. 8:1; Trail. 13:3; cf. John 17 :19), and
four times he uses of himself the sacrificial term antipsychon
(Eph. 21:1; Smyrn. 10:2; Polyc. 2:3, 6:1) also found in the
contemporary 4 Maccabees. At one point, indeed, he comes
close to identifying his own flesh with the flesh of Jesus as
the bread of God (John 6:33, 51), but he draws back and
speaks of 'pure bread of Christ' .(Rom. 4: 1).
These examples clearly demonstrate that Ignatius is a
significant example not only of 'Christ-mysticism' but also,
and more especially, of 'Paul-mysticism'. He is not Paul, but
the spirit of Paul lives in him. But since Ignatius wrote his
letters nearly two generations after Paul's death, it is a
question-at least hypothetically- how he knew what he
did about Paul. Conceivably he could have known about
him from oral tradition, either at Antioch or in Asia Minor;
but this kind of knowledge would not account for the in-
numerable echoes of Paul's letters in those of Ignatius. It is
much more likely that his mind was saturated with memories
of Paul's letters, which he applied to himself. F or example,
when he greets the T rallians 'in apostolic fashion', his
salutation contains clear echoes of Colossiaos 1 :19-20 and
27, partly because the 'spiritual knowledge' of the Trallians
seems to have resembled that to which some Colossiaos laid
claim (Trail. 5:2; cf. Col. 1 :16, 2 :18).
Ignatius even takes isolated passages from I Corinthians
(especially) and applies them to himself at unexpected
points; two examples will suffice.
I need your love, so that I may be judged worthy of the lot
which I am set to obtain, 'lest I be found a castaway' (1 Cor.
9:27; Trail. 12:3).
I become more of a disciple because of their [bis guards']
wrongdoing, 'but not by this am I justified' (1 Cor. 4 :4;
Rom. 5:1).

-
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTI ANITY 93
In all his church letters except Phl1ade1phians (to a church
with which his relations were not altogether cordial)
I gnatius makes use of something like a formula-again
derived from I Corinthians. :F-Ie refers to the church in Syria,
and then continues thus:

being the least of the faithful there (Eph. 21 :2)

whence I am not worthy to be called (Magn. 14)
whence I am not worthy to be cow1ted, being the least of
them (TraH. 13: 1)
I am ashamed to be counted one of them, for I am not worthy,
being the least of them and an abortion; but I have obtained
mercy to be someone (Rom. 9 :2).
I am not worthy to be from there, being the least of them; but
by God's will I have been judged worthy, not by my con-
science but by the grace of God (Smyrn. 11 :1).

What binds all these passages together is a passage never

quoted but obviously present, from I Corinthians.

Last of all he appeared to me as to ao abortion. For I am the

least of the apostles, unworthy to be called ao apostle,
because 1 persecuted the Church of God; but by God's grace
I am what I am ( I Cor. 15 :8- 10).

Vtrginia Corwin has suggested that the passage is in Ignatius'

mind because be felt himself responsible for divisions at
Antioch;1 more probably, in view of Paul's language,
Ignatius himself had once persecuted Christians, and per-
haps had been responsible for martyrdoms.
However this may be explained, it is a fact that 1 Corin-
thians is 'written on bis heart'; his letters are crowded with
allusions to it. And this means that conventional categories
1 St Ignatius and Christianity at Antioch (New Haven, 196o), 27- 29.
94 T H E FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMEN T

such as 'scripture' or 'canon' are not very relevant. Obviously

r Corinthians is supremely authoritative for Ignatius, even
though he never says he is quoting from it or calls it
'scripture'.
Though for Ignatius I Corinthians was the most meaning-
ful of the Pauline epistles, it is quite clear that he was
acquainted with a larger colJection which apparently in-
cluded Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philip-
pians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, and perhaps 2 Thessa-
lonians. It is possible, but not probable, that he knew the
Pastoral Epistles; the parallels-rather infrequent- probably
reflect similar situations, not use of the letters.
(1) Ignatius takes phrases from Romans. 'Where is
boasting?' (Rom. 3 :27) is found in a passage based entirely
on Pauline expressions (Eph. 18 :1). 'Newness of eternal
life' (Eph. 19:3) is clearly based on Romans 6:4-which,
with the following verse, is imitated in Trallians 9 :2. Paul's
discussion of flesh and spirit in Romans 8 :5- 8 is imitated
in Ephesians 8 :2, and bis mention of suffering 'with Christ'
(Rom. 8:17) recurs in Smyrnaeans 4:2.
(2) The Philadelphian bishop, like the apostle Paul (Gal.
I :1), obtained his ministry not from himself or 'through
men' (Phil.ad. 1 :1). Ignatius' contrast of Judaism with the
grace of God (Mago. 8 :1) seems to be based on Galatians
5 :2- 4. Elsewhere we find several phrases from Galatians
which Ignatius uses in his own way. Paul said that if the
Judaizers were right, Christ died in vain (Gal. 2:21);
Ignatius says that if the Docetists are right he himself is
dying in vain {Trail. 10; in a context based on I Corinthians).
The phrase 'the scandal of the cross' (Eph. 18: r) comes from
Galatians s: I I- again, used in a context of Pauline expres-
sions. Finally, when Ignatius says that his eros has been
crucified (Rom. 7 :2) be is imitating Paul's expression, ' For
me the world has been crucified' (Gal. 6: 14).
 HELLENIS T IC CHRISTIANITY 95
(3) From Ephesians Ignatius deriyes not only the passages
we have already discussed but also some of his expressions
about the unity of the Church; he imitates Ephesians4:3-6
in Magnesians 7:r and Phi1ade1phians 4, and speaks of unity
in P olycarp I:~, using a phrase from Ephesians 4:2. Men
are 'to love their wives as the Lord loved the Church'
(Polyc. 5: I; Eph. 5 :25-29). Similarly, the phrase 'in one
body of his Church' (Smyrn. 1 :2) is based on Ephesians
2:16 (perhaps with Col. 1:18). The Lord's 'dwelling in' us,
reflected in love (Eph. 15 :3) is an idea derived from
Ephesians 3:17-19; the phrase 'children of light', associated
with truth (Philad. 2:r) comes from Ephesians 5:8-9. In
Magnesians 13 :2 Ignatius asks for subjection to ' the bishop
and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the
Father and the apostles were to Christ and the Father';
subjection to one another comes from Ephesians 5 :21, and
the Church's subjection to Christ from Ephesians 5 :24.
Finally, the picture of the Christians' putting on the armor
of God (Polyc. 6:2) comes either from Ephesians 6:1 r- 17 or
from I Thessalonians 5 :8.
(4) In addition to the Pbilippians passages discussed
above, Ignatius seems to make use of such language at two
points in Smymaeans: the ideas of thinking and of perfection
(11:3) are also related in PhiJippians 3:15, and the ability
to do everything necessary because of the power of Christ
(4:2) is based on Philippians 4:13. Philippians 4:12 may also
be· echoed in Ignatius' description of the Ephesians as
'fellow-initiates with Paul' (Eph. 12:2).
(5) Colossians, as we have seen, is echoed in Ignatius'
Trallians at the beginning. There are other allusions as well.
In Trallians 5 :2 he states that he can understand 'heavenly
things' (ta epourania), and in Smymaeans 6: r he says that
'heavenly things', including rulers visible and invisible, will
be condemned if they do not believe in the blood of Christ.
96 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

('Things visible and invisible' are mentioned in Ron1ans

5 :3.) Here he probably has Colossians 1: 16-20 in mind, for
in those verses Paul mentions heavenly and earthly powers,
visible and invisible, and speaks of their reconciliation
through the blood of the cross. The phrase 'steadfast in
faith' (Eph. 10:2) occurs in Colossians I :23. Finally, the
notion that deacons are Ignatius' fellow-slaves (Epb. 2 :1;
Magn. 2: 1; Phi lad. 4; Smym. 1.2 :2) is based on Paul's re-
mark that Epaphras is a fellow-slave and a 'deacon of
Christ' for the Colossians (1 :7).
(6) As might perhaps be expected, there are few allusions
to the Thessalonian letters. The idea of pleasing not men
but God, however (Rom. 2:1), seems to come from r
Thessalonians 2 :4, and the injunction to 'pray unceasingly'
(Eph. 10:1) is repeated exactly from 1 Thessalonians 5:17.
A mention of 'the endurance of Jesus Christ' (Rom. 10:3)
may be based on 2 Thessalonians 3 :5, but Ignatius also
seems to reflect something like Matthew 10:22 (24:13) when
he speaks of enduring to the end.
As we have said, the possible allusions to the Pastoral
Epistles probably reflect a common viewpoint in relation to
heresy. It may be, however, that 2 Timothy 1 :16 is reflected
in Smyrnaeans 10 :2 and that 2 Timothy 2 :4 is paraphrased in
Polycarp 6:2. Perhaps this Jetter, or the Pastorals as a group,
were in limited circulation in the area around Ephesus.
There is one more letter with which Ignatius seems to be
acquainted. This is I Peter, clearly sent from Rome to a
wide area which included Asia Minor (1 :1). It seems likely
that Ignatius refers to this letter (as well as, perhaps, 1
Clement) when he says that the Roman church has taught
others and asks that their instructions may stand fast (Rom.
3: I). The instructions must be those to rejoice as one takes
part in the sufferings of Christ and to suffer as a genuine
Christian (1 Pet. 4:12-16)-for this is what Ignatius
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY 97
discusses in the third chapter of Romans. His short quotation
from Proverbs 3 :34 in Ephesians 5 :3 does not prove that
he was using I Pet. 5:5 (or James 4:6), for he knew the book
of Proverbs and his word order is not that of Peter or James.
The collection of letters which Ignatius knew, then, and
knew practically by heart, contained the following letters
(listed in order of frequency of use): I Corinthians,
Ephesians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1
(-2 ?) Thessalonians, and I Peter. This frequency of usage
indicates nothing about the way in which the letters were
collected or transmitted, for Ignatius' use of them depends
largely on the circumstances in relation to which he was
writing his own letters. It is no accident that the ones he
uses most often (r Corinthians, Ephesians) are those in
which the unity of the Church- practical and theoretical-
is most strongly emphasized. He does not call these letters
'scripture', however, and we have no reason to suppose
that he regarded them as such.
Indeed, in his letters only two quotations, both from the
book of Proverbs, are introduced by the formula 'it is
written' (Eph. 5 :3, perhaps based on I Pet. 5 :5; Magn. 12).
The same formula also occurs in Ignatius' account (Philad.
8 :2) of a debate be bad, apparently with Judaizing Christians
at Philadephia. They said to him, 'If I do not find it in the
"charters" (archeia), I do not believe it in the gospel.' He
replied, 'But it is written.' They answered, 'That is just the
question.• His response to their hesitation was to affirm that
for him 'the "charters" are Jesus Christ, the inviolable
sacred "charters" are his cross and death and resurrection,
and faith through him'. This account seems to make sense
if we assume that the Judaizers wanted proof from the Old
Testan1ent 'charters' for some point related to the death
and resurrection of Christ, and that Ignatius said that such
proof was written there. They then expressed their doubts
D
98 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

that it could be found, and he replied by arguing that the

foundation of Christian faith is not the Old Testament but
Jesus Christ. As he elsewhere says in similar circumstances
(Magn. 10:3), 'Christianity did not express its faith as
based on Judaism'.
His use of 'it is written' in these passages clearly suggests
that like the Judaizers he regarded the Old Testament as
'scripture', the written authority of the Church, and also
that neither he nor they knew written gospels which could
be regarded as 'scripture'.
This point does not imply, however, that Ignatius did not
know written gospels, and we must investigate this question
without regard for the question of canonicity or 'scriptural'
quality.
On the question of Ignatius' acquaintance with the gospels,
the most important recent works are those by C. Maurer
(Ignatius von Antiochien und das Johannesevangelium, 1949)
and H. Koester (Synoptische Uberlieferungen bei den
Aposto/ischen Viitern, 1957). Maurer endeavors to prove
that Ignatius knew the Gospel of John by showing that (1)
the way in which John was quoted by other second-century
writers is close to the way in which Ignatius seems to quote
John, (2) Ignatius' quotations from other documents are
as allusive as his presumed quotations from John, and (3)
several passages in Ignatius are very close to John. These
arguments seem conclusive, although perhaps Ignatius
knew the author or the editor of the Fourth Gospel instead
of, or in addition to, his book.
The most important parallels are as follows. (1) Ignatius
speaks of the Eucharist as 'the bread of God' (Eph. 5: 1;
Rom. 7:3) and identifies the bread with the flesh of Jesus
Christ (cf. Smyrn. 7:r), the wine with his blood (Rom. 7:3).
The bread of God is mentioned in John 6 :33 and identified
with the flesh of Jesus in John 6:51-58, where we also find
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY 99
drinking his blood discussed. (2) Ignatius speaks of the
Spirit, 'which is from God' and 'knows whence it comes and
whither it goes' (Philad . 7:1). So in John 8:14 Jesus knows
whence he comes and whither he goes, but his opponents
do not know. this, and in John 3 :8 Nicodemus does not
know whence the Spirit comes and whither it goes; and men
reborn through the Spirit (John 3 :5- 7) are men generated
by God (1 :13). (3) According to Pbiladelphians 9:1 Jesus is
'the door of the Father', as he is the door for the sheep
(presumably coming to the Father, John 14:6) in John 10:
7-9. (4) Jesus came forth from the one Father and is with
him and departed to him (Magn. 7:2); this teaching is em-
phasized in John 8:42 (13:3; 14:12, 18; 16:10, 17, 18). (5)
The idea that Jesus 'raised himself' (Smyrn. 2) is expressed
in John 10:18 (5:26.)1
The absence of exact quotations is no more striking than
the absence of exact quotations from 1 Corinthians.
As for the synoptic parallels, we must insist upon certain
methodological criteria before we discuss any of them. (1)
We have already seen that Ignatius uses the Pauline epistles,
which he certainly knew in written form, in a very free
manner. (2) We have argued that he knew either the Gospel
of John or Johannine ideas and used it or them in the same
way. (3) These points imply that if he knew any synoptic
gospels he presumably exercised considerable freedom in
in quoting from them. On the other band, (4) since we do not
definitely know that he knew any synoptic gospels we
cannot usually be sure whether he is alluding to books or
to oral traditions.
Beyond these points lies the basic question of the use of
memory, to which we shall return (Chapter VII). When an
author alludes to something which we know is written in a
1 Other theological parallels in Ermeneutica e tradizione (ed. E.
Castelli, Rome, 1963), 191-92.
JOO THE FORMATION OF TH E NEW TESTAMENT

book, it is not usually possible to determine whether or not

he derived it from the book. The words to which he alludes
may have come to him from the book or from someone else's
quotation from or allusion to the book, or from a source
(oral or written) quite independent of the book. This com-
plicated but authentic picture suggests that dogmatic con-
clusions, one way or another, are untenable.
Let us begin with two passages in which Ignatius speaks
of the baptism of Jesus. (1) Jn Ephesians 18:2 he says that
Jesus was baptized 'so that by the Passion he might purify
the water'. For the moment we need not consider either
what Ignatius meant or what sources outside the gospels he
may have had; it is enough to say that he did not derive this
statement from what we find in the synoptic gospels. (2)
On the other hand, in a semi-credal passage (Smyrn. 1 :1)
he states that Jesus was baptized by John 'so that all
righteousness might be fulfilled by him'. These words must
be related to Matthew 3:15: 'it is fitting for us to fulfil! all
righteousness'; the words 'fulfill' and 'righteousness' are
especially characteristic of Matthew's thought and vocabu-
lary. According to Koester, however, Ignatius relied not on
Matthew but on a kerygmatic formula composed by some-
one else. It is impossible to tell whether or not Koester is
right. Could not Ignatius himself compose kerygmatic
formulas?
Two passages in his letter to Polycarp (2 :1-2) are very
close to synoptic parallels.

If you love good disciples If you love those who love you
it is no credit to you. what credit is it to you (Luke
6:32)?
Become wise (sing.) Then become wise (pl.)
as a serpent-in everything- as the serpents
and guileless-forever- and guileless
as the dove. as the doves (Matt. 10:16).
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTI ANITY IOI
Certainly Ignatius regards these words as containing
proverbial wisdom; he inserts between them two Hellenistic
proverbs based on medical practice. But this fact does not
imply that he is not relying on his memory of what he has
read, at vario~s times, in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew.
When Koester says that 'it is more probable that both logia
come from the free tradition than that one is derived from
Matt., the other from Luke', we can only reply that this
conclusion is possible but not probable.
In our opinion Ignatius used whatever written sources he
had in a way strikingly similar to that in which the evangelist
John used sayings of Jesus1 and the Old Testament2-
without any attempt at verbal exactness. He relied on his
memory and did not check his references. As E. Flesseman
-van Leer has written, 'Ignatius attaches little importance
to the authority of scripture as such (though he nowhere
denies this importance)'.3 Indeed, one can go a bit farther
than this.
We recall once more that for Ignatius the primary author-
ity is the apostolic preaching about the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. For him it makes little differ-
ence, or none, whether the doctrine has been transmitted in
oral or written form. Because the matter is so unimportant
it is sometimes hard for us to decide what kind of sources
he is using when he tells us about Jesus. The best example
of the difficulty is provided in Smyrnaeans 3: 1-3.

I know and believe that even after the resurrection he was in

the flesh. And when he came to those with Peter be said, 'Take,
handle me and see that I am not a bodiless demon.' And
immediately they touched him and believed, being mingled
1 T. F. Glasson in Expository Times 57 (1946), 111- 12.
z C. Goodwin in Journal of Biblical Literature .73 (1954), 61-75.
3 Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen, Holland,
1954), 35.
102 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

with his flesh and spirit. Therefore they despised death and
were found to be above death. After the resurrection he ate
and drank with them as a being of flesh, though spiritually
he was united with the Father.

Where do these 'words of Jesus' come from? According to

Origen, they came from a Teaching of Peter-though this
may be just a guess based on the mention of Peter's name.
Jerome says they came from tbe Gospel of the Hebrews.
Eusebius sagely confesses his ignorance. Conceivably
Ignatius is simply paraphrasing Luke 24 :39 ('handle me and
see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones . . .')-
especially since eating and drinking with the risen Lord is
mentioned in this chapter of Luke, as well as in a speech by
Peter in Acts 10 :4 r. On the other hand, it is interesting and
perhaps significant that in a document close in time, if not
in place, to Ignatius we have already found materials
related to Peter and the Gospel of Luke but not found in
our gospels (2 Clement 5 :2-4).
There "is no reason to suppose that Ignatius, even though
he knew some gospels later regarded as canonical, was
restricted to using them only.
Our conclusion is that Ignatius certainly knew a collection
of Pauline epistles (at least eight in number) and probably
knew two or three gospels (Matthew, John, probably Luke).
He did not regard any of the Christian writings as 'scripture',
but for him no written document possessed the authority
of the gospel about Jesus Christ.

Polycarp of Smyrna

Polycarp certainly knows a collection of Pauline epistles,

and he knows that the Philippians also possess a collection,
apparently identical with bis own. 'When Paul was among
 HELLENISTIC C HRISTIANITY 103

you in the presence of the men of that time, he accurately

and steadfastly taught the word of truth, and when he was
absent he wrote you letters; by studying them you will be
able to build yourselves up into the faith given you' (3 :2).
Polycarp's 'word of truth' looks like an allusion to 2
Timothy (2:15, r8), and after this sentence he goes on to
allude to G,alatiaos 4 :26 and Romans r 3 :8- pre~umably
found in the collection he has in mind. Elsewhere (rr :3) he
refers explicitly to the Philippians as those 'among whom
the blessed Paul labored, who are at the beginning of his
letter; concerning you he boasts in all the churches which
then alone had known the Lord'. Here he seems to be
referring to Philippians 4: r 5 ('the beginning of the gospel')
and alluding to 2 Thessalonians r :4 ('we ourselves boast of
you in the churches of God'). Like Clement and Ignatius,
Polycarp likes to refer to the particular Pauline epistle
which he believes his correspondents value most highly.
Thus the words with which he begins his letter, 'I rejoiced
greatly with you in the Lord', are borrowed from Philippians
4:10 (2:17), and his mention of their firmly rooted faith
(1 :2) is probably another echo of Philippians 4:15-17.
Similarly the statement that the martyrs 'have not run in
vain' (9 :2) is based on Paul's words about himself in
Philippians 2:16. Finally, Polycarp's injunction to pray for
'the enemies of the cross' (12 :3) reflects the phrase of
Philippians 3 :18.
· The Pauline epistles to which Polycarp certainly alludes
are Romans, r Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philip-
pians, 2 Thessalonians, r Timothy and 2 T imothy. E.
Schweizer has suggested that 2 Thessalonians was actually
addressed to the Philippians, chiefly because of the allusion
mentioned above,1 but as W. R. Schoedel points out, Poly-
carp refers to only one letter addressed to them. H. von
J Theo/ogische Zeitschrift I (1945), 90-91.
104 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Campenhausen has offered the bold hypothesis that Poly-

carp himself wrote the Pastoral Epistles,1 but Polycarp
insists on the inferiority of himself to Paul and on the
difference between the apostolic age and his own time (3 :2);
this insistence seems to exclude the possibility that he wrote
letters in Paul's name.
In addition, he may know Colossians and almost certainly
knows Hebrews. He calls Christ 'the eternal high priest'
(12:2; Heb. 6:20, 7:3) and seems to allude to Hebrews 12:28
(6:3). 1 John 4:2-3 or 2 John 7 is also reflected (7:1). Most
significantly, he knows I Peter and I Clement practically
by heart; allusions to these letters-which he never mentions
or quotes-occur everywhere in his own writing.
The primary authorities to which he refers are 'the Lord
himself', 'the apostles, who brought us the gospel', and 'the
prophets, who foretold the coming of our Lord' (6:3). In
citing the Lord's teaching (2:3) he uses the formula already
found in Acts and I Clement when be speaks of ' remem-
bering what the Lord taught when he said ... '; the teaching,
as in I Clement, is paralleled ·in Matthew and Luke. Else-
where (4: I) he refers to 'the commandment of the Lord' and
once (7:2) quotes Matthew 26:41 as 'the Lord said'. He has
a collection, oral or written, of Jesus' sayings; the exact
quotation of Matthew 13:14-15 (6:2) suggests that it was
written.
Both the epistles and the sayings are included among the
authorities to which he refers when he uses the formula
'know1ng
. t hat .... '

I:3 'by grace you are saved, not by works' (Eph. 2 :5--9)
4:1 'we brought nothing into the world and can take nothing
out'. (I Tim. 6 :7, just after an apparent allusion to 1 Tim.
6:10)
1 Sitzw1gsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
(Philos.-hist. Kl.), 1951, no. 2.
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY 105
4:3 ... 'nothing escapes him [God] of reasonings or thoughts'
(I Clem. 21 :3)
5:1 'God is not mocked' (Gal. 6:7)
6:1 'we all owe the debt of sin' (the thought continues with
apparent allusions to Matt. 6:12, Luke 11 :4, or Matt. 13 :
14- 15)

In addition. we should mention 'being persuad~d that'

(9:2, with Phil. 2:16) and 'do we not know?' (11:2, with 1
Cor. 6:2). To go still further, we could include arguments
introduced with 'for' like those in 5 :3 (1 Pet. 2 :1 r and I Cor.
6:9- 10) and 6:2 (Rom. 14:ro-12).
It is clear enough that Polycarp regards the statements to
which he refers as authoritative. Did he regard them as
contained in 'scripture'? Certainly he knows of scriptures,
for he tells the Philippians (quoting their letter to him?)
that they are well versed in them, though he himself is not
(12:1).1 And he goes on to remark, 'as it is said in these
scriptures, "Be angry and sin not", and "Let not the sun
go down upon your wrath."' The first quotation comes from
Psalm 4:5; both occur together in Ephesians 4:26-a letter
which Polycarp knew. Koester 2 and others have supposed
that Polycarp thinks he is quoting from the Old Testament
but, since he is relying on his memory, uses Ephesians
instead. This view may be correct. Although there is nothing
in Ephesians to suggest to the reader that Paul himself is
using the Old Testament, Polycarp has just said that he
does not know the Old Testament well.
Our conclusion is that while Polycarp certainly had a
collection of epistles (at least eight Pauline letters, including
two of the Pastorals; I Peter; r Clement; r or 2 John;

1 Old Testament allusions, in fact, are unusual in his letter: Is.

52:5 (10:3), Jer. 5:4 (II :2), Tobit 4:10, 12:9 (10:2); perhaps Prov. 3:4
(6:1). .
2 Op. cit., 113.
106 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Hebrews; the letters of Ignatius) and at least one gospel

(Matthew), he did not regard the books as 'scripture'. From
this letter it cannot be shown that he knew the Gospel of
John, although-given the tradition about his learning
from John, the Lord's djsciple1 -we may suspect that he
djd.
Polycarp's evidence is important not only because he is
the first Apostolic Father to provide clear reflections of the
Pastoral Epistles but also because he shows that the New
Testament books were not definitely regarded as scripture
by him any more than by Clement or Ignatius. The Philip-
pians were evidently more concerned with 'scriptures' than
he was. The question of 'scripture' was not as important as
the question of 'the word of truth' set forth either orally or
in writing. At the same time, Polycarp clearly differentiates
the apostolic age from his own time and, presumably for
this reason, does not use the letters of Ignatius as authorities
-even though they 'contain faith, endurance, and all · the
edification which pertains to our Lord' (13 :2).

The Epistle of Barnabas

The use of New Testament writings in the Epistle of Barna-

bas is especially interesting because of the context in which it
occurs. For Barnabas, apparently arguing with Christians
tempted by Judaism, the primary authorities are Old Testa-
ment writers, chiefly ~he prophets; he often refers to their
writings as 'scripture'. But his Old Testament canon is
apparently a very broad one, especially in relation to
Jewish apocalyptic writings. He uses I Enoch for a pre-
diction of the last times and explicitly refers to Enoch him-
self as the author (4 :3); indeed, he refers to r Enoch as
r Irenaeus in Eusebius, H. E. 5, 20, 5.
 HELLENISTIC CHRISTIANITY 107
'scripture' and quotes a verse with the formula\t is written'
(16 :5-6). Among the prophets he includes the authors of 2
Esdras (cited, 12: 1) and 2 Baruch (cited, 11 :9), both of
whom wrote during the Christian era. Finally, according
to a late manuscript of his work his quotation from one of
the Psalms is combined with something from an Apocalypse
of Adam.
Under these circumstances, the use of 'it is written' to
introduce what looks like a quotation from Matthew (20: 16
or 22:14), 'Many are called but few are chosen' (4:14), is
neither surprising nor significant. To find that the Gospel
of Matthew is as 'scriptural' as 1 Enoch does not give
Matthew much credit.
At the same time, Barnabas clearly knows Matthew and
derives details about the passion of Jesus from it (7 :3, 5, 9).
Probably he gets from it his reference to Jesus as having
come 'not to call the righteous but sinners' (Matt. 9: 13, and
parallels; Barn. 5 :9). He probably also knows the Gospel of
John, for after discussing the serpent of Numbers he refers
to the 'glory' of Jesus (12:7; cf. John 3:14), and he speaks of
Jesus as having been 'pierced' on the cross (John 19 :34;
Barn. 7 :9). Neither Johannine reference is conclusive, how-
ever. It may be that Barnabas also knew the Pastoral
Epistles. His reference to Jesus as calling sinners, including
the apostles, 'lawless beyond all sin' (5 :9), reminds us of
1 Timothy 3: I 5: 'The saying is trustworthy and worthy of
full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners-of whom I am the chief.' And his mention of
'grace', 'manifested', and 'the destruction of death' (5:6)
recalls a similar combination of words in 2 Timothy 1 :9-10.
None of these passages, however, probable or improbable
as allusions, suggests in any way that Barnabas regarded
the New Testament documents as 'scripture' in a sense more
significant than that in which he regarded the Jewish
108 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

apocalyptic writings. He is no witness to the development

of a New Testament canon.
Our examination of these writings of the more Hellenistic
among the Apostolic Fathers clearly indicates that the use of
New Testament books was more common among them than
among Jewish Christians. In this regard, both I Clement and
2 Clement belong to the 'Hellenistic wing'. For all alike the
Old Testament, either with or ~ithout Jewish apocalyptic
literature, was regarded as 'scripture' and the New Testa-
ment writings were not so regarded. This is not to say that
the New Testament writings lacked authority. It is simply
to say that the question of 'scripture' was not especially
significant. When the author of 2 Clement apparently
quoted Matthew as 'scripture', and when Polycarp appar-
ently quoted Ephesians in the same way, their citations are
not much more important than the one found in Barnabas.
We cannot say that a New Testament canon had come into
existence as yet. We can say that among gentile Christians
the way toward a New Testament was being prepared.
 VII
The problem of the New Testament Apocrypha

I n addition to the books later regarded as canonical, there

were quite a few other documents in circulation among
Christians early in the second century and possibly earlier.
Clearly there was precedent for the use of such documents
in communities like the one at Qumran, where such an
apocalyptic book as I Enoch was read with enthusiasm.
The Epistle of J ude reveals the existence of an analogous
situation among some Christians, for in it we find a clear
a!Jusion to the apocryphal A ssumption of Moses (Jude 9)
and an explicit quotation from 1 Enoch (Jude 14-15). Early
Christian reading was not confined to the Old Testament.
M oreover, the fact that early Christians continued to
produce their own literature---e.g. the book of Revelation
'toward the end of the reign of Domitian'-did not at first
encourage the idea of a fixed collection of New Testament
books. Adherents of various minority groups within, and
on the edge of, the churches were not content to provide
exegesis of the books generally accepted but proceeded to
create additional gospels, acts, epistles, apocalypses, etc.
Their activities may have been encouraged by statements
like the ones we find in John 20:30 and 21 :25: 'Jesus per-
formed many other signs in the presence of his disciples
which are not written in this book', and 'there are many
IJO THE FORMAT ION OF THE NEW TESTA MENT

other things which Jesus did; if they were individually

recorded, I think that the world itself could not contain the
books that could be written'. Gnostics and others may have
proceeded to test this hypothesis.
Unfortunately we have practically no means of telling
when the movement toward writing the 'extra-canonical'
literature began. In our opinion none of the 'canonical'
gospels was written much later _than A.O. 75, even though
oral traditions about Jesus' life and teaching continued to
circulate for a considerable period of time thereafter. If we
look at the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Chapters IV-
VI) we see that there are several passages which resemble
what we find, or can reasonably suppose to have been, in
apocryphal gospels (e.g., 2 Clem. 12:2; Ignatius; Smyrn.
3 :2), but we do not know that these passages came from
written documents rather than from oral traditions. We can
certainly say that the materials used in the apocryphal
gospels were in existence; we cannot say that the gospels
themselves had been written. Eusebius tells us that a story
related by Papias was also to be found in the apocryphal
Gospel of the Hebrews, but this statement does not prove
that Papias used this gospel. On the other hand, the fact
that we do not know that apocryphal documents were in
existence does not indicate that they did not exist. They may
have arisen as early as the end of the first century. Indeed,
if we take literally what Luke says about his 'many' pre-
decessors who had undertaken to compile accounts of
Christian origins (Luke I :1-2), the 'many' may have
included writers whose works were later rejected.
In earlier eras of historical study, there was widespread
acceptance of the view that in all early Christian literature
one could trace 'development' and that one could then use
this 'development' for dating documents. Even if such
development could be shown to have existed in every area
 THE NEW TEST AMENT APO C RYPHA III

of Christian life and thought- and this bas not been shown
-it could hardly provide an accurate means of dating. And
when we deal with apocryphal documents which reflect the
views of little groups within the Church, our knowledge of
the history o( these groups is so limited that we are unable
to correlate the documents with it.
In recent times it is often suggested that many of the
apocryphal books come from about A.O. 140. The grounds
for this opinion are not altogether clear. We know that
Marcion presented his one gospel (a version of Luke) to
the Roman church about this time, but this fact tells
us nothing about the existence or the nature of other
gospels.
It is rather difficult to say what the authority of some of
these apocryphal writings was in the course of the second
century, because we possess so little Christian literature
from the period. We have to look for traces of usage or
non-usage and combine these with attitudes which often
come from a later time. For example, we know of a gospel,
a 'kerygroa', and an apocalypse ascribed to Peter. Possible
traces of the gospel occur in the Dialogue by Justin (about
160), but it really comes on the scene only when it is being
rejected by Serapion of Antioch (about 190). The Kerygma
was used by the Valentinian Gnostic Heracleon and by
Clement of Alexandria without any hesitation; Origen, on
the other hand, was most uncertain about its authority.1
We find the apocalypse in Clement's writings, but only in his
Eclogae propheticae.2 Again, the gospels According to the
Hebrews and According to the Egyptians occur in Clement's
writings up to the point at which he says there are only
four gospels (see Chapter XI); Origen uses Hebrews three
1 Clement, Str. 1, 182, 3; 2, 68, 2; 6, 39, 2-43,_3; 6, 48, 1- 2; 6, 58,
1; 6, 128, 1- 3; Eclog.proph. 58; Heracleon in Origen, Joh. comm. 13, 17.
2 £clog. proph. 41, 2; 48, I; 49, I.
1 12 TH E FORMATION OF THE NEW T ESTAMENT

times, but expresses doubts about its authority on each

occasion, and he explicitly rejects Egyptians. 1 Hippolytus
(early third century) says that the Naasseoe Gnostics use
the Gospel of Thomas; Origen rejects it absolutely. 2
From these facts one can probably draw the following
conclusions. (1) Various apocryphal gospels and other
writings were apparently used in various localities such as
Alexandria and Antioch without much hesitation during
the second century. It is even possible that the Gospel
according to the Egyptians was used at Rome, since
parallels to it occur in 2 Clement. (2) Toward the end of the
century non-Gnostic writers came to be much more cautious
in employing these writings. Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen
concur in stating that the Church as a whole accepts four,
and only four, gospels. 3 (3) Nevertheless, one must not
suppose that logic was rigorously employed in this con-
nection. Clement stopped quoting explicitly from Hebrews
after stating that there were four gospels; instead, he quoted
from the book without naming his source (Str. 5, 96, 3).
Origen expressed his doubts about this gospel but quoted
from it just the same and provided exegesis of it. (4) This
means that while in theory there were four gospels, in prac-
tise-perhaps even more among Christians who did not
write books- there were more. After all, though Serapion
of Antioch finally banned the Gospel of Peter, at first he was
perfectly willing for it to be read (see Chapter X). In view
of the fact that the situation would have been much clearer
if only four gospels were being used, we must suppose that
popular pressure was responsible for the semi-acceptance
of other books. And if such popular pressure existed, it was
I Jer. hom. 15, 4; Joh. comm. 2, 12; Matt. comm. 15, 14; Egyptians:
Luc. hom. 1.
2 Hippolytus, Ref 5, 7, 20; Origen, Luc. horn. 1.
3 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3, I I, 11; Clement, Str. 3, 93, 1; Origen,
Luc. !tom. 1.
 THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA 113

probably due to the weight of previous custom. We con-

clude, then, that before the end of the second century mauy
Christians used more than four gospels, even though the
'canonical' four were the ones most widely employed. We
should add that some Christians relied upon only one
gospel-either one of the four or one more highly favored
by a particular sect.
The most significant of the extant apocryphal gospels is
the Gospel of Thomas, parts of which were found in Greek
sixty years ago (but not identified). The whole gospel was
discovered at Nag Hammadi in Eygpt about 1945, in a
Coptic version of the fourth century. It consists of about 115
sayings, parables, and brief dialogues ascribed to Jesus; it
begins with the statement that 'these are the secret words
which Jesus spoke while alive and Didymus Thomas wrote
down'. R. North has classified their contents in relation to
the synoptic tradition as follows: (1) synoptic sayings
reproduced identically (about 25); (2) synoptic sayings ex-
pressed more succinctly; (3) synoptic sayings slightly ampli-
fied or combined ; (4) synoptic sayings altered, usually in a
Gnostic direction. In addition, there are sayings which have
no New Testament parallels-a few rather like the 'canonical'
sayings, more of them Gnostic in tone. 1 The question has
arisen whether the author of Thomas was relying on the
written synoptic gospels or on oral traditions of various
kinds. In my own view, Thomas is based, at least in large
measure, on the written gospels of Matthew and Luke, 2 but
it remains possible that its author used not only these gospels
but oral traditions as well.
The way in which he arranged his materials is rather
n1ysterious. Quite a few of the sayings are put together in
I Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962), 164-65:
2 See R. M. Grant-D. N. Freedman-W. R. Schoedel, The Secret
Sayings of Jesus (New York- London, 196o).
114 THE FORMAT ION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

relation to common subject matter; others seem to be cor-

related only by verbal association and thus perhaps reflect
oral transmission (see Chapter IV). S. Giversen1 has pointed
out a peculiarity in the book as it now stands, and as it
stood in the Greek fragments: the question about fasting,
prayer, almsgiving, and food laws which the disciples ask
in saying 6 is not answered until saying 14, and sayings 7-13
are not related to the subject. Does this suggest that the
author intentionally disarranged his materials so that only
the Gnostic reader could understand them? Or that a later
editor- not too late, since the present arrangement is
reflected in the Greek fragments from about A.D. 200-is
responsible for the situation?
Similar difficulties arise in regard to the so-called Gospel
of Philip, discovered in the same volume of Gnostic docu-
ments. This 'gospel' is much less a gospel than is Thomas,
and there are very few sayings of Jesus in it, or references to
his actions. Instead, there is considerable exegesis of what
seem to be New Testament books, including Matthew, Luke,
and John, some of the Pauline epistles (Romans, 1-2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and perhaps Ephesians
and Hebrews), and finally I Peter and I John. 2 These books
are all, with.the possible exception of Hebrews, attested by
Valentinian Gnostics, from whose circles Philip almost
certainly comes (see Chapter VIII). At this point we are
primarily concerned, however, not with Philip's sources or
canon but with his arrangement of his materials. To trace
any sequence in it, as a whole, is practically impossible. His
work seems to reflect the intention of purposely confusing
the uninitiate reader.
The question of arrangement is fairly important because
I Acta Orie11talia 25 (1961), 332- 38.
2 Cf. R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (London-New York,
1962), 7.
 THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA I TS

the gospels accepted by the churches were at least relatively

clearly arranged. The reader has some confidence that he
knows what is being discussed. A consecutive and rather
consistent story is being told. In an apocryphal gospel like
Thomas (leaving Philip out of account, since it is so different)
the reader can tell what is being discussed only within limited
sections of the book. Only a perceptive eye like Giversen's
would note that separate sayings should really be read
together.
Some apocryphal gospels, however, seem to have been
more like those generally accepted by Christians. Among
these were the gospels According to the Hebrews and
According to the Egyptians which we have already mentioned.
And while we really know nothing about the ways in
which their authors arranged their materials, the fragments
from these gospels which we possess suggest that they were
closer to the synoptics, at least, in form, than to the Gospel
of Thomas.
Further information about the way in which gospels were
created in the early second century is provided by the .'frag-
ments of an unknown gospel' published by H. I. Bell and
T. C. Skeat in 1935. Two of the fragments are medium-sized
(roughly 12 x 9 cm) while the third is tiny (6 x 2.3 cm).
The handwriting points toward the first half of the second
century. Here we reproduce in English what can be made
out with some measure of certainty, along with gospel
parallels.
Fragment I verso

. . . to the lawyers
. . . every transgressor
. . . and not me . . .
5 . . . bow be does . . . to
(the) rulers of the people
. . . be said this word, Search John 5 :39: Search the scriptures, for
the scriptures, in which you you suppose that in them you have
suppose you have life; they are eternal life; they are those which
116 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMEN T
I 0 those which testify about me; testify about me. S :45: Do not sup-
do not suppose that I came to pose that I will accuse you to the
accuse you to my Father; there Father; there is one who accuses
is Moses who accuses you, on you, Moses, on whom you have set
whom you have set your hope. your hope. 9:29: We know that God
15 When they said, We know well spoke to Moses, but as for this man,
that to Moses God spoke, but we do not know whence he is.
we do not know you ... Jesus
answered and said to them,
Now is accused your unbelief
cf. John 9:41, 12:31, 3 :18
Fragment I recto
• . . to the crowd
. . . stones together to stone John 8 :59: They took up stones to
him; and they laid cast at him
25 their hands on him, the rulers,
to take him and . . . 7 :30: they sought to take him
to the crowd; and they could
not take him because not yet bis hour was not yet come
had come bis hour of betrayal.
30 But the Lord himself, going
out . . .
. . . departed from them.
And behold, a leper coming to cf. Matt. 8 :2-3; Mark 1 :40-2;
him, says, Teacher Jesus, while Luke 5:12- 13
35 traveling and eating with lepers
in the inn I became a leper my- no gospel parallel
self; if then . . .
I am.cleansed. The Lord . . .
I wish, be cleansed ... Matt. 8 :3; Mark 1 :42
40 The leprosy left him. cf. Mark 1 :42
. . . Go, (show yourself) to the
(priests) 'as a testimony to them'; 'priests' in
Luke 17:141
Fragment II recto
. . . to him they (asked him) cf. Matt. 22: I 5-16 and parallels
testing him (saying),
45 Teacher Jesus, we know that ... John 3:2: Rabbi, we know that you
you have come, for what you have come as a teacher from God;
do (bears witness) beyond all for no one can do the signs . . .
the prophets . . .
to us: is it right to kings .. . Matt. 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke
SO what pertains to authority? .. . 20:22
to them or not ? But Jesus,
knowing their mind, was in-
dignant and sai d to them, Why Mark I :43 : indignant (cf. John
do you call me with your 11 :33). Luke 6:46: Why do you call
SS mouth Teacher and do not me Lord, Lord, and do not do what
hear what l say? Well, did I say? Matt. 15:7- 9; Mark 7:6-7:
(Isaiah) prophesy about you, Well did Isaiah prophesy, etc.
saying, this people honor me
with their lips but their heart is

I On the textual variants in the synoptics see G. Mayeda, Das

Leben-Jesu-Fragment Papy rus Egerton 2 (Bern, 1946), 36.
 THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA 117
60 far from me; in vain they wor•
ship me, commandments ...
Fragment II verso
. . . to the place with closed no gospel parallels
. . . is subject unclearly
.. . his weight unweighed ...
6S . . . they were perplexed
at the strange question
•.. walking, Jesus stood
at the mouth of the Jordan
river and stretching forth his
70 right hand . . .
. . . and sowed on the
. . . and then .. .
. . . water .. .
. . . and .. .
7S . . . brought forth fruit . . .
. . . much . . .

The first point to be made about this combination of

various kinds of materials is that they come from what we
know as Johannine, synoptic, and apocryphal. Fragment I
verso is almost entirely Johannine; I recto begins with
Johannine motifs and continues with a variant version of a
synoptic story; II recto combines two synoptic-type
pericopes and uses some Johannine phrasing; and II verso
seems to contain an apocryphal miracle-story. (By'synoptic'
we mea1,1 primarily Matthaean and Marean, for the parallels
to Luke provided by the first editors depend partly on the
way in which they have filled in gaps in the text; but the
parallel in lines 52-4 is rather striking.)
The second point is that the order we have given is not
necessarily correct. Another possibility, as Bell and Skeat
point out, is that II verso may have come first, with II recto
(and a reference to what Jesus is doing) following it; later
in the book, but probably still in the first half of it, would
come I verso and recto. The sequence of the gospel parallels
to the fragments gives us little, if any, aid.
The third point is that the parallels are re_markably close
to (though usually not identical with) the Gospel of John.
Fragment I verso begins with something very close to John
I 18 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
5 :39 and substitutes 'life' (as in John 5 :40) for 'eternal life'.
Next comes the equivalent of John 5 :45, with 'I came'
inserted from John 5:43. The mention of Moses leads on
to John 9 :29 (as Jeremias suggested1), and Jesus' answer
recalls three other Johannine passages (9:41, 12:31, 3:18).
In I recto we begin with something like John 8:59 (10:31)
and go on to John 7 :30 (32, 44; 8 :20). The Johannine 'hour'
is explained as the 'hour of betrayal' as in Mark 14:41.
Then, after Jesus leaves the rulers (as in John 8 :59 and 10:
39), we find the story of a leper- a variant of that told in
Mark 1 :40-45 and parallels (see also Luke 17:11-19,
another variant?). Fragment II recto begins with the
synoptic question about paying tribute, but there are striking
differences from Mark 12:13-17 and parallels. Mark's story
of their question has them begin with the words, 'Teacher,
we know that you are true'. Our fragment, however, seems
much closer to John 3:2, where Nicodemus (a 'ruler of the
Jews') s.ays, 'Rabbi, we know that you have come as a
teacher from God, for no one can do these signs which you
do unless God is with him.' And the question itself deals
not with Caesar but with 'kings', not with tribute but with
'what pertains to their authority'. Jesus is then 'indignant',
as in Mark's story of the leper (r :43), and calls for true
understanding ( = obedience) as in Luke 6:46. With this is
combined a statement about the prophecy of Isaiah 29:13,
phrased much as in Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7.
What are we to make of this? One point is very clear: the
author of the 'unknown gospel' did not make direct use of
our gospels, in the sense that he transcribed them word for
word into bis own book. Instead, it is practically certain
that be was relying on his memory, and that his memory did
not provide verbal exactitude. But this certainty only opens
the way to a further question: is the 'unknown gospel' based
1 Cf. Mayeda, op. cit., 66.
 THE NEW T ESTAMENT APOCRYPH A II9

on memories of (a) the written gospels (John and some, at

least, of the synoptics), or (b) oral traditions, or (c) both kinds
of materials? Here it would appear that the latest con-
clusion of C. H . Dodd has much to commend it: 'although
I believe that in the first fragment of Pap. Eg. 2 there is
a direct quotation from the Fourth Gospel, I now think
it more probable that fragment 2 is a divergent rendering
of a common tradition all through (as it pretty clearly is
in its main substance).' 1 This is to say that the fragments
reflect a situation not unlike that depicted by Papias-
one in which books (e.g., Mark or John) are certainly in
circulation, but oral tradition is still very highly valued;
and the two kinds of sources obviously overlap.
I t is the kind of situation to which Koester points in his
book on synoptic tradition; though written gospels were in
existence, not all the Apostolic Fathers made direct use of
them. Only the passage of time, and the increasing danger
of Gnostic secret traditions, could drive most of the oral
traditions out of general circulation.
This situation means that we encounter grave difficulties
when we try to describe or analyse the period of transition.
When an early Christian writer is quoting a saying of Jesus,
for example, he may do so in a variety of ways. (1) He may
be copying it out of a book; this situation is likely to exist if
a long selection is being used. (2) He may be quotin; from
memory what he has read in a book. (3) He may be quoting
from memory what he has heard from someone else-and
his informant can have derived the information either from
(a) a book or from (b) oral tradition. Unfortunately it is not
always or, indeed, often possible to determine which one of
these possibilities is the actuality, or whether any one is the
actuality rather than a combination of several of them.
.
1 C. H . Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge,
1963), 329.
120 THE FORMATION OF TH E NEW TESTAMENT

Our negative conclusion is reinforced by the ways in

which some, though not all, early Christian writers give
quotations from the Old Testament and from the Pauline
epistles. In these situations they are obviously relying upon
written documents; but in the Gospel of John there are
almost never exact quotations and in r Clement there is a
mixture of exact quotations and highly inexact ones. The
letters of Ignatius, as we have seen, are crowded with
reminiscences of the Pauline epistles, especially I Corin-
thians; but Ignatius never provides explicit quotations from
them.
This means that among early Christian writers there is a
considerable measure of fre-edom in the citing of authorita-
tive texts. They are concerned not with the letter but with
the spirit of the texts and of the oral traditions as well. And
when the authors of the New Testament apocrypha makes
use either of texts or of traditions they are undoubtedly
convinced that they are entitled to the same freedom. Only
the gra·dual exaltation of the texts regarded as alone
authoritative, along with the gradual development of the
limits of doctrinal variety, made it possible for the Church as
a whole to reject the apocryphal writings.
 VIII
The New Testament books in Gnostic circles

In tracing the usage and the authority of the New Testament

books in the second century we obviously cannot limit our
investigation to the writings of those whom the 'great
Church' then or later regarded as orthodox. We must also
consider the extant fragments of the works of important
heretics such as Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinus (with his
disciples). These fragments clearly show the way in which
their authors viewed the New Testament writings, and they
provide invaluable supplements to the more orthodox
treatments which we shall discuss in Chapters IX and X.
The reason for regarding these Gnostics' writings so
highly is that they considered themselves to be Christians.
In most instances, they did not intend to break away from
the Church; they remained within it until they were expelled,
and in some instances-perhaps in the case of Basilides-
they were not in fact expelled. Their writings are likely to
be based upon ordinary Christian usage at the times, and
in the places, in which they wrote.

Basilides
The earliest and most important witness is· Basilides, who
taught at Alexandria during the reign of Trajan (A.O. 117-
122 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TES T AMENT

138). Here the question is whether we can o r cannot rely

upon the account of his teaching provided by Hippolytus
in a book (the Refutation of Heresies) written in the third
century. P. Hendrix, followed by other scholars, has
cogently argued that Hippolytus preserves the authentic
teaching of Basilides and that conflicting accounts of it pro-
vided by other authors are secondary. 1 Since this is the case,
we cannot agree with E. Jacquier that the formulas of
citation in Hippolytus' account come from Hippolytus
rather than from Basilides. 2 Our case is supported by the
statement of Agrippa Castor (second century) that Basilides
wrote twenty-four books of Exegetica on the Gospel. 3
According to a quotation from them in the Acta Archelai,
Basilides ascribed the parable of D ives and Lazarus (Luke
16:19- 31) to 'the saving Word'. 4
It is therefore extremely significant that in Hippolytus'
account of the system we find exegesis of John, Luke, and
Matthew- introduced by formulas identical with the ones
Basilides uses in relation to Old Testament texts. 'This is
what the gospels mean when they say' (John 1 :9; Hippolytus,
Ref. 7, 22, 4); 'this is what is meant by' (Luke r :35; 7, 26,
9); 'this is proved by the Savior's saying' (John 2:4; 7, 27,
5) . . . 'as well as by the Magi who saw the star' (Matt.
2:1-2; ibid.).
Even more striking is the way in which Basilides refers to
the Pauline epistles. He used the formula 'as it is written' in
referring to texts from Romans (7, 25, 1- 2), 2 Corinthians,

1 De Alexandrijnsche Haeresiarch Basilides (Amsterdam, 1926); cf.

J. H. Waszink, 'Basilides', Rea/lexiko11 fur Antike und Christen/um I,
1217- 25.
2 Le Nouveau Testament dons l'Eglise chretienne I (ed. 2, Paris,
1911), 146-48.
3 Eusebius, H. E. 4, 7, 7.
4 Translations in R. M. Grant, Gnosticism: an Anthology (London-
New York, 1961), 123- 37.
 NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS IN GNOSTIC CIRCLES 123

Ephesians (7, 26, 7). Indeed, he cit_es 1 Corinthians 2: 13 with

the formula 'the scripture says' (7, 25, 3). Jacquier argues
that 'it would be remarkable, if Basilides really used these
formulas, for him to be the first writer to attest the divine
authority of the New Testament books'.1 But, as he himself
points out, we find something similar in the Epistle of
Barnabas-and, we should add, in Polycarp and 2 Glement.
We conclude that Basilides only makes explicit what other
Christians already implicitly held, and that he is a witness
to Alexandrian Christian usage in his time.
It is often supposed that (r) the New Testament books
were not regarded as scripture until at least the middle of
the second century, and that (2) the impetus for so regard-
ing them was given by Marcion of Pontus, who taught at
Rome between 137 and r44. If we now recognize that at
Alexandria some New Testament books were already
regarded as scripture, we cannot give Marcion quite as high
marks as he has usually received, and we must give due weight
to the possibility-one might better say, probability- that
the idea of treating New Testament books as 'scripture'
arose in Alexandria early in the second century.
There are good historical grounds for supposing that this
was the case. Among Alexandrian Gnostics and, one may
perhaps infer, among those Alexandrian Christians who
were more 'orthodox', there was usually considerable
~everence for the Old Testament- at least as interpreted
allegorically. This point of view may have been, though we
cannot say definitely that it was, reflected in such documents
as Hebrews and Barnabas. Suppose one were to jettison the
Old Testament? Suppose one were to believe that the
Christian revelation was new, even if one did not jettison
the Old Testament? I n either case one would tend to apply
to the New Testament documents the honorific titles already
1 Op. cit., 147.
124 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

used in regard to Old Testament books. And this is the

situation we encounter in the remains of Basilides' works.
This is to say-as Jacquier refused to say-that the earliest
witness to a definite view of the New Testament writings as
'scripture' is the Alexandrian Gnostic Basilides. We should
also, however, in part reject what Jacquier rejected: the
notion that Gnostics led the way in this regard. We should
do so partly because of our pr~vious interpretation of the
Apostolic Fathers as on the verge of viewing the New
Testament books as scripture but either reluctant to do so
or not interested in the question. We should also do so
because at Alexandria and elsewhere Gnosticism was so
close to 'orthodox' Christian ideas. The fact that Basilides
is our first clear witness to the idea that New Testament
writings were 'scripture' does not prove that he was the
first to hold this view. In fact, the rather offhand way in
which be so speaks of them suggests that he shared the idea
with others, and that Alexandrian 'orthodox' Christians-
about whom we know nothing-may well have held the
same opinion. We can, however, definitely infer from
Basilides' statements that it was at Alexandria that the idea
of treating the New Testament books as scripture first arose;
and it should be added that the New Testament books
included at least three gospels (Basilides may not mention
Mark because it was being regarded as secret; see Chapter
XI) and four Pauline epistles-therefore probably more.
Indeed, the evidence which Basilides supplies suggests that
we should go farther still in creating hypotheses, and per-
haps should argue that 2 Peter (see Chapter I) may as well
be from Alexandria as anywhere else.
 NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS JN GNOSTIC C I RCLES 125

Marcion

This leaves us with the question of what Mar~ion contri-

buted. EspecialJy L<furing the last century,Jfcho1ars have
often argued that he w~ responsible for creating the canon
of the New Testament. The grounds for this judgment are
fairly so~arcion wrote a book of Antitheses in which
be contrasted his own ethical dualism, as based on New
Testament texts, with other (inferior) New Testament texts
and on passages from the Old Testament. His basic idea
was that there were two gods: one the good Father of Jesus,
the other the just (and sometimes bad) creator-god of the
Old Testament. Given this starting point he could proceed
to publish the authentic Gospel (Luke, without interpola-
tions) and Apostle (Paul, without interpolations and without
the Pastoral Epistles). His ideas about authenticity seem to
have been based on a combination of some textual evidence
with a great deal of confidence that he alone knew what the
gospel should have been and what Paul should have written.
The theory of interpolations, rather fashionable in his day,1
allowed for a considerable exercise of ingenuity, especially
-as presented by Marcion-without any supporting
evidence. Somehow, as l renaeus remarked, 'he persuaded
his disciples that he was more trustworthy than the apostles
who transmitted the gospel'. 2
In preparing his Apostle, Marcion apparently arranged
the letters in relation to length-except for Galatians, which
he viewed as most important because it was opposed to
Judaizers and showed Paul rebuking Peter. He therefore
placed this letter first and continued with Corinthians I- II,
Romans, Thessalonians I- II, Ephesians (w~icb he called
1 See The Letter and the Spirit (London, 1957), 21-25.
2 Gnosticism: an Anthology, 45.
126 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

'Laodiceans', presumably because of the mention of the

letter from Laodicea in Colossi ans 4: I 6), Colossians-
Philemon, and Philippians.1 There is some chronological
arrangement here, for the imprisonment epistles come at
the end; but the place of the Thessalonian letters does not
seem right. Since Marcion did not accept Acts, be was
deprived of the assistance it gives toward arranging the
Pauline epistles- and also did not have to face some of the
difficulties involved.
What was his contribution? It seems to have consisted
not so much of the idea of a canon, or of the creation of a
canon, as of the rigorous and rather misguided principles
on the basis of which he produced his works. It is true,
however, that his method and results forced more orthodox
Christians to examine their own presuppositions and to
state more clearly what they already believed.

The Valentinians

Marcion was not the only heretic who flourished at Rome

in the middle of the second century. Around the same time,
and somewhat later as well, there was an equally important
Gnostic teacher named Valentinus, along with his principal
disciple, Ptolemaeus. From the fragments of Valentinus'
writings we cannot determine how he viewed the New Testa-
ment books. Van Unnik has shown that if he wrote the so-
called Gospel of Truth he probably knew a rather extensive
New Testament collection with Hebrews though apparently
without the Pastoral Epistles.2 Since we are not sure that he

I See J. Knox, Marcio11 and the New Testament (Chicago, 1942),

40-46.
2 W. C. van Unnik in F. L. Cross (ed.), The Jw,g Codex (Loudon,
1955).
 NEW T ESTAMENT BOOKS IN GNOSTIC CIRCLES 127

did write the Gospel of Truth, we turn to the fragments of

Ptolemaeus. These fragments show that Ptolemaeus regard-
ed the New Testament books-properly interpreted- as
supremely authoritative because they contained the apostolic
tradition which came from the Savior Jesus. He never uses
the word 'scripture'; instead, be speaks of what 'the Savior
said' or did and refers to 'the sayings of Jesus'. Th:ese are
contained in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke;
though Ptolemaeus certainly knew the Gospel of John, we
cannot tell how he viewed the sayings contained in it. As for
the epistles, he uses only Romans, r-2 Corinthians, Gala-
tians, Ephesians, and Colossiaos, usually speaking of them
as written by Paul or 'the apostle', although once he gives a
more specific reference: 'Paul said in First Corinthians'
(this is the earliest example of such precision). He describes
the Fourth Gospel as written by 'John the Lord's disciple',
and refers to him, as to Paul, as 'the apostle'.1 This evidence
clearly shows that like Marcion the Valentinians venerated
Paul; unlike him they also used John and the other synoptics.
They were closer to the Church as a whole than Marcion
was, at least in this respect.
Ptolemaeus also wrote a brief commentary on the prologue
to the Gospel of John, and somewhat later another Valen-
tinian named Heracleon composed exegetical notes on parts,
at least, of the first eight chapters of the Gospel. These notes,
known to us from Origen's Commentary on John, reveal the
mind of a subtle allegorizer, interpreting what Jesus 'really'
meant when his disciple John was recording his words.
Heracleon makes use of Matthew, Romans, r Corinthians,
Hebrews, Revelation- and the apocryphal Preaching of
Peter, which, like Clement of Alexandria (Chapter XI), he
viewed as authentic.
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon represent the 'western' wing of
1 See Gnosticism: a11 Anthology, 162-90.
128 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Valentinianism, and it is therefore important to observe that

their use of documents the Church in the West regarded as
apocryphal was much more restrained than was the use we
find reflected in the remains of works by the Eastern
Theodotus and Marcus. Theodotus, from whose writings
Clement of Alexandria co1npiled excerpts, relies on three
classes of authorities: ( 1) the prophets, inspired by the Spirit,
who wrote 'the prophetic writings' of the Old Testament
(individuals wrote 'the word of the prophet' or 'the
prophecy'); (2) the Savior, who taught the apostles in three
ways (in prefigurations and mysteries, in parables and
enigmas, and plainly and unveiledly); and (3) the apostles,
the most important of whom was Paul.1 The formulas
Theodotus uses in providing references are like those we
have found in Ptolemaeus.

'the Savior says' or 'said' four gospels; perhaps also

'the Lord said' Egyptians (67, 2)
'the apostle says' or 'said' Paul or John; also Luke (74, 2)
'it is said' Ephesians (41, 2); synoptic
tradition (42,3); perhaps
Thomas (21, 3)
'the passage' or 'the saying' Genesis (21, 1); Deuteronomy
(Greek word to without a (28); also John (6, 1)
noun)
no formula Pauline expressions; Proverbs
(47, I); Daniel (38, I); Mark
(85, I)

Theodotus thus treats his Old and New Testament authori-

ties alike. His New Testament seems to be considerably
more extensive than that of Ptolemaeus, if (and the 'if' is
important) he derived non-canonical sayings of Jesus from
I Clement, Exe. Theod. 24, 1; 50, 3; 47, 3; 62, 2; 66.
 NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS IN GNOSTIC CI R CLES 129

books. Like Ptolemaeus, he had a collection of Pauline

epistles; in his discussions we find echoes from Romans, 1
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colos-
stans.
The Valentinians who followed Marcus were farther from
the main stream of Catholic Christianity. According to
Irenaeus, they used 'a multitude of apocryphal and 'Spurious
writings which they themselves forged'. Among these was a
tradition about how the boy Jesus taught his teacher; they
also used at least one saying of Jesus which we find in the
Gospel of Thomas. 1
None of the Valentinians seems to have employed the
word 'scripture', and this silence can be explained in various
ways. First, of course, and probably most important is the
fact that for them what mattered was not the written word as
such but what it mysteriously signified. Second, they may
have avoided the term 'scripture' because at the time when
they began to separate from the Church it was not commonly
used in regard to New Testament books and, indeed, in
their own time was not often employed. They would have
noticed that when Paul and other New Testament writers
speak of 'scripture' they are referring to the Old Testament.
The view of Basilides, as we have observed, is different from
that of the Valentinians.
Generally speaking, Gnostic usage strongly resembles
what we have already encountered among the Apostolic
Fathers. Basilides knew at least three gospels and treated
them as he treated Old Testament texts; he viewed at least
four Pauline epistles as 'scripture' (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians,
Ephesians). Marcion used only one gospel (Luke, revised
version) and ten Pauline epistles. The Valentinians generally
relied on four gospels, although they also made use of
traditions found in the Gospel of the Egyptians and the
I Irenaeus, Adv. haer. I, 20, 1-2.
E
130 THE F ORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Gospel of Thomas. All our Valentinian witnesses made use

of Romans and 1 Corinthians; two of them employ Gala-
tians, Ephesians, and Colossians; 2 Corinthians and
Philippians also appear.
It is probably significant that the Valentinians, who did
not use the term 'scripture' of New Testament writings,
stood rather close to Jewish Christianity and, indeed, to
heterodox Judaism, while Basilides and Marcion more
clearly reflect gentile ideas. This difference corresponds with
what we have already found in the Apostolic Fathers. The
movement toward the creation of a New Testament was due
to gentile Christians, orthodox and unorthodox alike.
 IX
The New Testament books
in the Greek Apologists

Justin

With the writings of the apologist Justin (c. 150- c. r6o) we

first encounter Christianity as presented by a self-conscious
literary creator, a man acquainted with the protocol of
presenting petitions to the emperor and with the dialogue
form, and able to provide allusions to Greek poetry and
quotations from Plato. Because of Justin's literary environ-
ment and intention, we should expect him to have an idea
of the New Testament books as literature and to express it
somewhat more clearly than did the Apostolic Fathers. This
is all the more likely since he presents Old Testament quota-
tions only from the books recognized by Jews as canonical
(see Chapter Il)-even though he uses a version rather
different from the ordinary Septuagint text.
When he says, as we shall see, that what the Christians call
'gospels' can be classified as 'reminiscences' or 'memoranda'
(Apo!. I, 66, 3), he is presumably trying to explain to Greek
readers the degree to which they resemble Xenophon's
Memorabilia of Socrates- a work which he describes but
does not name (Apo/. 2, I I, 3). This fact suggests that in
trying to understand his ideas about a canon (if he bad one)
132 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

we must bear in mind that his extant works are addressed to

those outside the Church. He is not necessarily setting forth
all he knows, and what he does set forth is not necessarily
expressed in language always characteristic of the Christian
community.
When we speak of language characteristic of the Christian
community, however, we must bear in mind that this lan-
guage was not something fixed oi; clearly differentiated from
Hellenistic Greek in general. Similarly, the attitude of early
Christians toward books as such, scriptural or non-
scriptural, was not uniform. Those who like Justin were
accustomed to deal with Greek books and to cite them or
their authors by name followed the same practise in citing
biblical writings. More precisely, those early Christians such
as the Apostolic Fathers who do not explicitly refer to
Greek literary work are not likely to provide exact refer-
ences to the books of the Old Testament or the New;
Justin, on the other hand, provides fairly exact references
for his quotations not only from the biblical books but also
from the Timaeus of Plato (Apo/. I, 60, I ; Dial. 5, 4), the
Socratic dialogues (Apo/. 2, 3, 6; 2 , 10, 5-6), and the writings
of Xenophon. To be sure, Justin's references are not always
exact. As in modern times, in antiquity it was not always
necessary to point precisely to one's sources, even if one
knew what they were. A quotation from the Republic of
Plato in Apology I, 3, 3 is introduced by the rather vague
and rather elegant expression, 'One of the ancients said
somewhere'; and in Apology I , 39, 4 a line from Euripides
is called 'what is said'. In Dialogue I, 3 Justin addresses
Trypho with a tag from the Iliad; 'I addressed him jestingly',
he says, thus indicating that both Trypho and the reader of
the Dialogue were expected to recognize the allusion.
We should not claim that there is a mathematically demon-
strable correlation between an author's exact citations from
 THE GREEK APOLOGISTS 133
Greek literature and his exact citations from biblical
writings. In general, however, something of a correlation
does exist, and it shows that the question of canonicity is to
some extent a cultural question as well as a theological one.
It is not an accident, we suggest, that the canonical books
come clearly into light, that attempts are made to delimit
the canon precisely among those writers who stand closest
to Graeco-Roman literary culture-i.e., Clement, Origen,
and Eusebius (see Chapter XI), and that the clearest evidence
from an earlier time occurs in the writings of the Gnostics
who are sometimes expressing their ideas in relation to
Hellenistic philosophy and theology (Chapter VIII).
Because Justin was writing in a period crucial for our
understanding of the use of the New Testament, we should
pay very close attention to the differences and similarities
between what he says in his earlier Apology (about A.D. 150)
and what he says in his later Dialogue with Trypho (about
160). During the decade between the two works Justin's own
ideas, not to mention those held in the Roman community,
may well have undergone some changes.
Some of the ideas are definitely the same. For instance,
in the Apology (1, 28, 1) he says that 'from our writings' ·
(i.e., those of the Christians) readers can learn that Christians
call the chief of the demons by the names 'serpent', 'Satan',
and 'devil'. The same point is made with greater precision
in the Dialogue (103, 5). Moses (i.e., in Genesis) calls him
'serpent', Job and Zechariah call him 'devil', and Jesus calls
him 'Satan'. Thus it becomes clear that Justin has in mind
the synoptic gospels, where Jesus uses this name. Again, in
the Apology (66, 3; 67, 3) Justin twice refers to the 'memo-
randa' or 'reminiscences' of the apostles, which be identifies,
in the latter passage, by the Christian name 'gospels'. These
books contain accounts of what Jesus did aiid said, and like
the writings of the prophets, they are read aloud at Christian
 134 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
worship. The same terms recur in the Dialogue although,
oddly enough, the 'memoranda' are mentioned only in
chapters 100-07, chiefly in relation to exegesis of the
Christological Psalm 21 (22). For this reason W. Bousset
offered the conjecture that Justin was making use of an
earlier commentary he had written on this psalm-and he
was probably right.1 Both in the Apology and in the Dialogue
Justin's primary authority is the Old Testament.
On the other hand, there are some differences between
the two works. The additions, some of them explanatory or
exegetical, which Justin makes to the gospel narratives in
the Apology are few and far between, while in the Dialogue
(especially in cc. 78 and 88) they are much more common.
At the same time, Justin has learned, doubtless from con-
troversy, something about quoting from texts. In the Apology
he was content to quote 'verbatim' from Genesis (32, 1;
59, 1) and Isaiah (33, 1). By the time he wrote the Dialogue
be was aware that there were various versions of the Old
Testament in Greek, and he refers to differences among them
no fewer than seven times (71- 73; 120; 124; 137- 38).2 A
~ similar movement toward exactness also occurs in relation
to the gospels. In the Apology (34, 2) he had wrongly stated
that Quirinius was the first procurator of Judaea; in the
Dialogue (78, 4) he more accurately states that the first
census took place under Quirinius (Luke 2 :2). And only in
the Dialogue do we find exact statements about what 'is
written in the memoranda of the apostles' (100-1; 103-4;
.J 106-7). It is there that we also find a statement which shows
how these memoranda were at least on the verge of being
regarded as scripture. In Dialogue 49, 5 Justin begins by

1 Jiidisch-cl1rist/icher Schulbetrieb i11 Alexa!ldreia wzd Rom

(Oottingen, 1915), 292--93.
2 On a text not unlike his see D . Barthelemy in Revue Biblique 6o
(1953), 18-29.
 THE GREEK APOLOGISTS 135
quoting what 'our Christ' said; these are the words found in
Matthew 17:10-12a. Immediately afterwards he proceeds
thus: 'And it is written that, Then the disciples understood
that he spoke to them about John the Baptist' (Matt. 17 :13). V
'It is written~ is doubtless equivalent to 'it is written in the
memoranda of the apostles'; but since in the Dialogue
Justin has not yet referred to these memoranda (and the
passage occurs before the point at wbjch there is a break in
the manuscript), it is more than likely that he is using the
formula ordinarily employed in regard to Old Testament
books in relation to the gospels. After all, as we have already
seen, the gospels were included with the Old Testament
books among 'our writings'.1
The movement toward precision reflected in the Dialogue
also suggests that we should take seriously what he says
about the authors of the memoranda: these books were
composed by 'the apostles and by those who followed them'
(103, 8). Thls statement may be based, at least verbally, on
the preface to Luke's gospel, where we find the same word
for 'follow' and a similar word for 'compose' (Luke 1:1, 3).
In addition, Justin soon afterwards refers to a statement
found only in Mark 3:16-17 and locates it in the 'memo-
randa of Peter' (106, 3). This means that we cannot neatly
differentiate apostolic and sub-apostolic gospels in Justin's
usage. He is ascribing a book by a disciple of an apostle to
the apostle himself. It remains likely, however, that he knew
the sub-apostolic gospels ascribed to Luke and Mark and,
to judge from his other quotations, the apostolic gospels
ascribed to Matthew and John.
It is odd that there is only one rather clear quotation from
1 It is probable that Justin knew the book of Acts; cf. F. Overbeck
in Zeitschrift fur Wisse11schaftliche Theologie 15 (1872), 305- 49, for an
inconclusive attempt to prove that he did. A more conclusive proof is
provided by E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschiclzte (Gottingen, 1959), 6-7.
The primary text is Apo!. I, 50, 12 (Acts 1 :8).
 136 TH E FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

John (3 :3, 5) in his writings (Apo!. I, 64, 1): 'Christ said,

"Unless you are born again you will not enter into the
kingdom of heaven."' This reticence is rather surprising in
view of his explicit statement (Dial. Sr, 4) that the book of
Revelation was written by John, one of the apostles of
Christ. From this book Justin derived not only his millen-
arian views but also-though he does not say so-the state-
ment we have already mentioned, that the chief of the evil
demons is called 'serpent and Satan and devil' (Apo/. r, 28,
1; Dial. 103, 5; 125, 4). We have no reason to suppose that
Justin viewed the author of Revelation as also the author of
the Gospel; perhaps be knew the latter work (if, indeed, he
knew it) as anonymous but somehow apostolic.
Another difficulty arises when we consider the Gospel of
/ Luke. Presumably Justin thought it was written by a dis-
ciple of an apostle. If so, the apostle must have been Paul-
whose letters he never quotes. Perhaps this situation was
due to controversy at Rome over Marcion's collection of
Pauline epistles. Furthermore, Justin's extant works were
written for non-Christian audiences. He could not appeal
to the authority of the Pauline epistles without raising the
problem of Paul's place in Christianity. Finally, the Pauline
epistles themselves were addressed to Christians, not to
outsiders. Perhaps he thought it would be unsuitable to
use them.
Justin's 'New Testament', it would appear, consisted of
'gospels' or 'memoranda' written by apostles and their fol-
lowers, and of the book of Revelation. Ifwe possessed books
he wrote for Christian readers we might well find that he
regarded the Pauline epistles as authoritative as well-
perhaps also I Peter and I John-but we do not possess
such books.
In addition, he made use of various traditions, probably
J
oral, about the life of Jesus. These resemble the midrashic
 THE GREEK APOLOGISTS 137
additions he sometimes makes to the Old Testament and
do not affect his 'canon' one way or the other. It is clear,
however, that such traditions were sometimes authoritative
for him. In the Dialogue (47, 5) he states that 'our Lord
Jesus Christ said, "In what I find you, in this will I judge
you"'. This quotation does not occur in the four gospels;
it is found as an oral tradition in a sermon by Clement of
Alexandria.1 At least implicitly, then, Justin recognizes the ✓
authority of oral tradition as well as that of written books.

Tatian

The situation is somewhat different when we tum to Justin's

sometime disciple Tatian, who composed his Oration to the
Greeks about 176. Justin had often mentioned Jesus and, as
we have seen, had spoken of the gospels and Revelation.
Tatian never explicitly mentions Jesus and never refers
precisely to any New Testament books. He likes to be
mysterious, as a semi-Gnostic passage in the Oration (c. 30)
shows i but there he does not refer to the Matthaean parables
for which he is supplying allegorical exegesis or, for that
matter, to the Gnostic gospels of Thomas and Philip to
which his thought is close.2 In Oration 13 he refers to John
I :5 as 'what is said' but does not tell his reader who said it,
and in Oration 19 he quotes John 1 :3 exactly but does not
indicate that he is quoting. In chapter I 5 there is an explicit
but inaccurate quotation from Psalm 8:6 'in accordance
with the word which says ...'
On the other band, there are frequent allusions to the
Pauline epistles- especially, it would appear, to Romans,
1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and either Ephesians
r Quis div. salv. 40, 2 .
.2 Sec .fqurnal of Theological Studies 15 (1964), 65-69.
138 THE FORMATION OF THE N E W TESTAMENT

or I Thessalonians- as well as to Hebrews. From the frag-

mentary remains of other works we know that he provided
exegesis of r Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. H is col-
lection of New Testament books thus closely resembled that
of his contemporary, the Valentinian Heracleon (see
Chapter V).1
According to Jerome be rejected 'some epistles of Paul'
but recognized the authority of the letter to Titus (In Ep. ad
Tit., praef.). Such recognition may conceivably be due to
certain points at which Tatian could find theological support
in Titus; the word 'continent' (encrates) occurs in Titus I :7,
and Tatian was the leader of the Encratite heresy.
His most important work was the Diatessaron, in which
he wove together the content of the four canonical gospels,
possibly also (like Justin) making use of some oral traditions.
The title shows that Tatian obviously recognized the primacy
and uniqueness of only four gospels. 2

Melito

Another Christian apologist of the later second century was

Melito of Sardis, whose extensive writings are lost except for
a few fragments and a paschal sermon preserved in Greek
and Coptic and summarized in Latin.3 Unfortunately for
our purposes, nothing that survives contains any reference
to New Testament books. Melito was certainly concerned
with the Old Testament. In the sermon he quotes from
Moses, David, Jeremiah, and Isaiah; and it begins with the
I See Texte und Untersuchungen 63 (1957), 297-306.
2 See The Earliest Lives of Jesus (London-New York, 1961),
22- 28.
3 See 'The Fragments of the Greek Apologists and Irenaeus' in J.
N. Birdsall-R. W. Thomson, Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory
of R. P. Casey (Freiburg, 1963), 192- 201.
 THE GREEK APOLOGISTS 139
words, 'The scripture of the Hebrew Exodus has been read
and the words of the mystery have been explained, how the
sheep is sacrificed and how the people is delivered.' Echoes
of New Testament expressions are fairly common, but
Melito does-not tell us how he viewed the books.
We have already seen (Chapter II) that he was eager to
find out the exact contents of the Old Testament; he listed
'the old books', i.e. 'the books of the old covenant'. It has
sometimes been argued that he must have known the
expression 'New Testament', but this is not logically implied
by what he said. What is implied is that be knew of 'new
books' corresponding with old ones, and of 'books of the
new covenant' corresponding with books of the old one.
Though Melito is not a witness to a New Testament as
such, he is a witness to the exaltation of the New Testament
books among gentile Christians. Like Ignatius, be is a
representative of the Hellenistic culture, deeply influenced
by rhetoric, with which Christians were becoming ac-
quainted in the second century.1

Athenagoras

The apologist Athenagoras, who wrote his Legatio about the

year 178 perhaps at Alexandria, makes explicit use of
writings contained in the Old and New Testaments.2 He
refers to the divine inspiration of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and ' the rest of the prophets', and provides quotations from
Baruch (3:36) and Isaiah (44:6; 43:10-11; 66:1), referring
his imperial addressees to the books which contain the

1 On Melito's style see A. Wifstrand in Vigiliae Christianae 2

(1948), 201-23.
2 Sections numbered in accordance with the edition of P. Ubaldi-
M . Pellegrino (Torino, 1947).
140 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

prophecies (9, 1-3). He ascribes two quotations from Pro-

verbs to 'the prophetic Spirit' (ro, 4; 18, 2), and in the first
instance adds that 'we declare that the Holy Spirit ... is
an emanation from God, emanating and returning like a
ray of the sun'-an allusion to Wisdom 7 :25. Two of
Athenagoras' references to the Sermon on the Mount
contain statements that Christians have learned these words
or were bought up on them (r, 4;·11, 2). He quotes various
verses in a form in which the Matthaean and the Lucan
versions are blended together (I, 4; 12, 3) but sometimes
follows Matthew alone (rr, 2; 32, 2) or what looks like
Mark (33, 5).1 There seem to be allusions to John in his
statements about the Son's being in the Father and the
Father in the Son (ro, 2) and about Roman rule as given
'from above' (18, 2; John 19, 11).
There are indisputable allusions to Romans r :27 (34, 2),
Galatians 4 :9 ( I 6, 3), and I Timothy 2: 1-2 (37, 2-3); these
show that Athenagoras possessed a collection of Pauline
epistles, including the Pastorals, but do not allow us to say
how be regarded them.
As for the treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead
ascribed to him, we find in it definite quotations from God's
law in Exodus (23, 2- 5) and statements 'according to the
apostle' based on I Corinthians 15 :53 and 2 Corinthians
5:10 (18, 5). In both the Legatio (12, 3) and the treatise (19,
3) there is probably an allusion to I Corinthians 15 :32.
A quotation from 'the word which says' (Leg. 32, 5)
comes from a manual of church discipline, not from some-
thing like the Old or New Testament.

I Matt. 5:28, 5:39-40 with Luke 6:29, 5:44-45, 5:46a plus Luke
6:34a plus Matt. 5:46b; Mark 10:u.
 THE GREEK APOLOGISTS

Theophilus

Somewhere around the year 180, and a bit later, the bishop
Theophilus of Antioch addressed three apologetic treatises to
a certain Autolycus. These books contain allusions to all four
gospels and possibly to Acts, to aJl the Pauline epistles except
1-2 Thessalonians, and to Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and
Revelation. His 'canon' thus contains the books which were
later accepted at Antioch (see Chapter X).
In addition, Theophilus provides explicit quotations from
two gospels and three epistles. These quotations occur in
two sections which deserve to be reproduced almost in full.
First, in Ad Autolycum 2 , 22 be speaks of the generation of
the Word and points out that it is taught us by 'the holy
scriptures and all the inspired men, one of whom, John, says,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was before
G od"-showing that originally God was alone and the
Word was in him'. Theophilus then continues his quotation
with these words: 'And the Word was God; everything came
into existence through him, and apart from him nothing
came into existence.' This passage clearly shows that Theo-
philus regarded John as inspired like the Old Testament
prophets and, for that matter, the Sibyl (2, 9). Since he
views John's teaching as derived from the Spirit of God, the
Gospel must be as authoritative as any Old Testament
book. It must be equivalent to scripture, whether Theophilus
says so or not. We should also point out that in his view
John wrot~ a gospel. Theophilus therefore is not making
use ofTatian's Diatessaron but of an individual gospel-book.
Second, in Ad Autolycum 3, 13- 14 Theophilus quotes
passages (perhaps against Marcion's Antitheses) to show
that there is a synthesis of the prophets and the gospel.
142 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Concerning chastity the holy Word teaches us not to sin, not

only in deed but even in thought, not to think in one's heart
about any evil or to desire another's wife when one has
beheld her. Now Solomon, who was a king and a prophet,
said, 'Let your eyes look forward, let your eyelids incline
directly; make straight paths with your feet' (Prov. 4:25- 26).
But the gospel voice gives more rigorous teaching about
purity, saying, 'Everyone who sees another's wife to desire her
has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And he
who marries,' it says, 'a woman divorced by her husband
commits adultery, and he who divorces his wife without
grounds of fornication makes her commit adultery' (Matt.
5 :28, 32). Solomon further says, 'Will anyone put fire in his
bosom, and will not bum his clothing? Or will anyone walk
on a fire of coals, and will not burn his feet? So he who
approaches a married woman will not be guiltless' (Prov.
6:27-29).
And that we not only love our confreres- as some suppose-
the prophet Isaiah said, 'Tell those who bate you and curse
you, "You are our brothers", so that the name of the Lord
may be glorified and may appear in their gladness' (Is. 66:5).
And the gospel: 'Love', it says, 'your enemies and pray for
those who abuse you. For if you love those who love you, what
kind of reward do you have? Brigands and tax collectors too
do this' (Matt. 5 :44, 46; Luke 6 :27, 32). It teaches those who
do good not to boast, so that they may not be sycophants. For
'let not', it says, 'your left hand know what your right hand is
doing' (Matt. 6 :3). And further, concerning 'being subordi-
nate to principalities and powers' (Tit. 3 :1) and 'praying for
them' the divine Word gives us a command, 'so that we may
lead a quiet and peaceable life' (1 Tim. 2: 1-2). And it teaches
us to render everything [due] to all: 'honor to whom honor is
due, respect to whom respect is due, fear to whom fear is due,
taxes to whom taxes are due- to owe no one anything except
to love all' (Rom. 13 :7- 8).

It is obvious that Proverbs, Isaiah, the Gospel ( of Matthew?),

and the Pauline epistles are all expressions of the holy or
divine Word. T he fact that Theophilus refers to Proverbs
 THE GREEK APOLOGIS rs 143
24:21-22 in his first book as from 'the law of God' and in
the second book quotes Genesis from 'the divine scripture'
is related to his apologetic purpose, not to the history of
the New Testament canon. Indeed, he never speaks of
Jesus and the disciples, and he derives the name 'Christian'
from chrism. Wben an author is obviously concealing much
of his religious tradition we cannot expect him to say much
about its books. It is surprising that we find anything at all.
We have to pay attention to the allusions in order to see
the extent of the New Testament influence on Theophilus'
mind. For example, there are 15 to r Corinthians, 11 to
John, 8 apiece to Matthew and Luke, and 7 to Romans.
Finally, it should be clear that early Christian authors do
not always simply reproduce the New Testament writings.
This fact is especially obvious at one point in Theophilus'
work (2, 27). Paul had written that 'as by one man's dis-
obedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedi-
ence many will be made righteous' (Rom. 5:19, RSV).
Theophilus begins as Paul did but develops bis own thought
in quite a different direction. 'Just as by disobedience the
man acquired death for bimself'-thus far, from Paul-'so
by obeying the will of God, whoever will can obtain eternal
life for himself. For God gave us a law and holy command-
ments (cf. Rom. 5:12); everyone who performs them can be
saved (cf. Matt. 19:16-19 and parallels) and, attaining to
the resurrection, can inherit imperishability (1 Cor. 15:50).'
Theophilus is using Pauline phrases but is reinterpreting
them by placing them in a non-Pauline context. We may
recall that Ignatius made use of the same procedure.1
This is to say that while for Theophilus the Pauline

1 E. Barnikol (Texte und Untersuchungen 77, 196r, 102-3) has

argued that the New Testament passages in Ad .Auto/. 3, 13- 14 come
from a 'neutestamentliche Oberarbeitung', but the evidence supplied
for this revision is inconclusive.
144 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

epistles are almost indubitably 'scripture', they are treated

in a context which involves other New Testament writings
which represent different points of view. Just as Theophilus
(like other second-century theologians) is concerned with
synthesizing the Old Testament and the contents of the
New, so he is concerned with combining Paul's teaching
with that of Christ and other apostles.
Before going on to the end of the second century we
should summarize what we have found in the works of the
apologists. (1) For all of them the synoptic gospels are
authoritative. Justin speaks of them as gospels; Athenagoras
refers to them as sources of Christian teaching; Theophilus
uses the expressions 'gospel voice' and 'gospel'. (2) It is
highly probable that both Justin and Athenagoras knew the
Gospel of John; Tatian and Theophilus certainly knew it.
Theophilus referred to its author as inspired by the Spirit.
(3) Other gospels were certainly in circulation, and Tatian
seems to be making use of something like the gospels of
Thomas and Philip; apparently, however, he was aware that
they were not generally used. (4) As for the Pauline epistles,
Justin provides nothing but allusions, probably because of
the Marcionite crisis at Rome; his disciple Tatian follows
his example in an apologetic work, although elsewhere he
provides explicit quotations and exegesis. Athenagoras too
alludes to the epistles in bis apology, though the treatise On
the Resurrection contains an explicit reference to 'the apostle'.
Theophilus offers many allusions and once speaks of 'the
divine Word' as the source-or the content-of Paul's
letters. (5) Clear Allusions to Hebrews occur in Tatian, and
Theophilus. (6) Tatian's probable rejection of 1-2 Timothy
is unique, perhaps Gnostic in origin. Allusions to I Timothy
occur in Atbanagoras, and Theophilus treats I Timothy
and Titus as Pauline. (7) It is harder to find traces of the
non-Pauline letters, although in Theophilus there are
 THE GREEK APOLOGISTS 145
allusions to I Peter and I John. (8) Justin explicitly says
that Revelation was written by 'John, one of the disciples
of Christ', and allusions to the book appear again in
Theophilus.
The authoritative character of these New Testament books
is not open to question. The gospels were certainly read at
Christian worship in Justin's time, and he mentions them
ahead of the Old Testament prophets. Melito of Sardis
speaks of the Old Testament as consisting of 'old books',
and his statement implies the existence of a collection of
'new books'. Athenagoras refers to the gospels as the source
of Christian teaching. Theophilus clearly views the gospels
and the epistles as just as authoritative as the prophetic
writings.
On the other hand, these authors do not usually call the
New Testament books 'scripture'; they do not usually
employ the expression 'it is written' in regard to their con-
tent. Wbat this means is not quite clear, for in arguing with
Jewish or gentile opponents an appeal to New Testament
'scripture' as an authority would not be of much use. From
some of the Apostolic Fathers we know that the New Testa-
ment books were close to being viewed as 'scripture', and
the Gnostic Basilides certainly regarded them in this light.
We should assume that, while the Old Testament continued
to be the primary 'scripture' of the second-century Church,
the New Testament books were in process of being recog-
nized as scriptural.
APPENDIX TO C H APTER IX

Several sections of the Sermon on the Mount deserve

special attention because their use by second-century
writers illustrates how freely the gospels were quoted
Matt. 5:28 (Athenag. 32)
Everyone who looks at a
woman to desire her has
already committed adul•
tery with her in hls heart.

Matt. 5:32
Everyone who divorces his
wife without grounds of
fornication makes her
commit adultery, and
whoever marries a divorc-
ed woman commits adul-
tery.

Matt. 5 :44- 46 Luke 6:27-28 Did. 1 :3

I say to you, Love your I say to you ...
enemies, Bless those who Love your enemies . . .
curse,1 (Pray for your Do well to those who hate
enemies)• and pray for you,
those who persecute you, Bless those who curse you. Bless those who cu
so that you may become Pray for those who abuse and pray for your e
sons of your Father m you.
heaven, for he makes his
sun rise upon the evil and
the good, and makes it
rain upon the just and
unjust.•

Luke 6 :32-34
For if you love those who For (b) if you Im
And if you love those who
love you, what reward Jove you, what credit is
who Jove you, (:
have you? Do not tax col- that to you? Sinners do the
credit is it? (c) Do
lectors do the same? same. gentiles do the sar
you, love those w
you.
1 Inserted from Luke in some manuscripts of Matthew; so Athenag. 11, r.
2 Added in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224.
3 Athenagoras quotes this exactly, except •bat he reads 'the Father wl
heaven'.

-
 Justin, Ap. I, 15, I Theoph. 3, 13
Whoever looks at a woman Everyone who looks at an-
to desire her has already other's wife to desire her
committed adultery in his has already committed
heart, in God's view. adultery with her in bis
heart.

Justin, Ap. I, 15, 3 Theoph. 3, 13

(b) He who divorces his
wife without grounds of
fornication makes her
commit adultery; (a) he
He who marries a woman who marries a woman
divorced by her husband divorced by her husband
commits adultery. commits adultery.

Justin 1, 15, 9 Theoph. 3, 14

(b) I say to you, Pray for
your enemies and love Love your enemies and
those who hate you and pray for those who abuse
bless those who curse you you.
and pray for those who
abuse you.

fem. 13:4

r you love those who (a) U you love those who For if you love those who
you, (a) it is no credit Jove you, what new thing love you, what reward do
u,' (c) but it is a credit do you do?Thefornicators you have? Brigands and
,u love enemies and too do this. tax-collectors too do this.
: who hate you.

See also Ignatius, Po/ye. 2 :1: 'If you love good disciples, it is no credit to you.'
 X
The New Testament books
at the end of the second century

During the course of the second century the basic collectior

of the New Testament books came to be firmly establishec
among Christians, Gnostic and 'orthodox' alike. There wa
a nucleus of writings which almost all accepted, consistini
of four gospels, an indeterminate number of Pauline epistle
(though usually ten or thirteen), a few other letters (usuall:
1 Peter and I John), and the book of Revelation. The bool
of Acts seems to be reflected in I Clement and Justin'
Apology but not elsewhere. In addition to these basic book
many Christian writers continued to use books late
declared apocryphal, and oral traditions as well.
The books in the basic collection were sometimes calle,
'scripture', but a certain hesitation over the use of this terr
for anything but the Old Testament seems to have continuec
It is also probable that, except in discussions with Jewis
critics, the question of what was 'scripture' and what wa
not did not seem especially important.

Serapion of Antioch

The question of what books to use continued to preser

difficulties, at Antioch and elsewhere, until at least the en
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY 149
of the seond century. About 190 Serapion of Antioch visited
Rhossus, a village in his diocese, and found that disagreement
bad arisen over a gospel ascribed to Peter. He settled the
issue rather hastily by giving his permission for the book to
be read; he does not say whether publicly or privately. He
supposed that all the Christians at Rhossus 'held to the true
faith' and therefore would be reading only orthodox books.
When he returned to Antioch, however, he was able to
obtain a copy from some Docetists {who perhaps supposed
that the bishop was ripe for conversion) and then discovered,
presumably by comparing it with the accepted apostolic
gospels, that it contained some additions to 'the Savior's
true teaching'. (We should add that the book cannot have
contained the tradition about Peter which Ignatius knew-
p. 101f.-for it was being used by Docetists who supposed
that Christ merely 'seemed' to have a human body.)
Serapion makes a statement in which the difficulties con-
cerning 'fringe' literature become very clear. He accepts, he
says, Peter and the other apostles 'as Christ' (compare
Galatians 4:14), but be rejects the writings falsely ascribed
to them, since he knows that they were not handed down by
tradition.1 This statement shows that two criteria were
involved in acceptance of such books. (1) The books had to
be genuinely apostolic; this means that they had to be con-
sonant with the books of the basic collection, universally
regarded as apostolic. (2) They had to be handed down by
tradition from the apostolic age. Had they been read by
early Christians, they would still be read; and if orthodox
Christians were now reading them, it could be presupposed
that they were early. A book used by the unorthodox might
be trustworthy, but it needed to be examined with care.
These two criteria obviously led to difficultie$, for (1) there
are differences between the Gospel of John and the synoptic
1 Eusebius, H. E. 6, 12, 3- 6.
150 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

gospels, as the A1ogi (see below) were insisting, and

furthermore (2) in various centers Christians were accus-
tomed to read various books (see Chapter XI). Perhaps
Serapion was aware of the difficulties, but the tone of his
letter suggests that he was not.
It is worth noting that the question of 'scripture' did not
arise in the course of this discussion, as far as we know;
and nothing Serapion says would indicate that it could have
arisen. The question was not, 'Are these books to be counted
as "scripture"?' but 'Are these books apostolic and
orthodox ?'1

The Alogi and Gaius of Rome

The questions not solved by Serapion were being raised

by the A1ogi, apparently in Asia Minor in the second cen-
tury, and by the Roman presbyter Gaius early in the third.
The Alogi, whose nickname was given them because they
rejected the Gospel of John with its teaching about the
Logos ('alogos' also means 'irrational'), were apparently
troubled by the use which adherents of the 'new prophecy'
were making of the Gospel and the Book of Revelation.
The Montanists spoke of their teacher as the new Paraclete
(John 14:26, etc.) and expected the imminent descent of the
new Jerusalem (Rev. 2r :2). The Alogi responded by
ascribing both books to the Jewish-Christian heretic Cerin-
thus, by comparing the Gospel with the synoptics to show
that it did not agree with them, and by ridiculing the apoca-
lyptic imagery of Revelation. Gaius, in his Dialogue with
the Montanist Proclus, took the same line, contrasting
I Serapion's difficulties may have been increased if his predecessor
Theophilus used the Teaching o, Peter; cf. E. v. Dobschiitz, Das
Kerygma Petri (Leipzig, 1893), 57.
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY I5I

details in Revelation with passages from the Gospel of

Matthew, the Pauline epistles, and parts of the Old Testa-
ment. In addition, Gaius accepted only thirteen Pauline
epistles, like Irenaeus (see p. 154) rejecting Hebrews.1
Presumably he used similar comparisons between Hebrews
and the Pauline letters to support his case.
The work of the Alogi and Gaius in regard to the Johan-
nine books does not necessarily imply that there was wide-
spread doubt about their authoritative character. On the
contrary, it seems to reflect a deliberate effort to take away
the authority ascribed to them by the Montanists as by
other Christians. Presumably Epiphanius, writing about
A.D. 375, did not quote their exact words, but he correctly
represented their general position. 'They say that since the
Gospel according to John does not say the same things
[as do the synoptic gospels] it is uncanonical (adiatheton)
and they will not accept it.' 2 We cannot press the late word
adiatheton, but it suggests that the Alogi knew of a collection
generally accepted-and were proposing a different one.
Other Christians viewed their proposal without enthusiasm.

Jrenaeus of Lyons

Probably the most important statements about the New

Testament in the late second century are those provided by
lrenaeus, missionary bishop of Lyons, who wrote five books
against heresies about 185. His statements are important
because they are much more extensive than anything we
have encountered before. They are also important because
Irenaeus was closely associated in his youth with Polycarp of
Smyrna and later came into close contact with the traditional
1 Eusebius, H. E. 6, 20, 3.
2 Pan. 51, 18.
152 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

views of the Roman church. Although we cannot exclude

the possibility that sometimes he speaks for himself, he is
ordinarily concerned with maintaining and transmitting a
tradition which he regards as essentially uniform. If there
is anything novel about his views of the New Testament
books, we may suppose that it lies in the way he expresses
them, not in the views themselves. He is almost certainly a
reliable witness to the situation.not only in Gaul in his time
but also to that in Rome and Asia Minor during the genera-
tion before him.
We have already discussed his use of the Old Testament,
which consisted of the books in the commonly accepted
Greek version and included the additions to Daniel,
Baruch, 2 Esdras, and I Enoch. Sometimes, as A. Benoit
has shown, he made use of collections of texts ;1 more often
he turned to the Old Testament itself. It would appear that
when he thought of the New Testament in relation to tbe
Old he sometimes had two similar collections of books in
mind; one consisted of 'the law and the prophets', the other
of 'evangelical and apostolical' documents. 2 The titles of
the second collection may, of course, have been suggested
to him by Marcion; but we should assume that in this
regard Marcion was reflecting Christian usage, not vice
versa.
Irenaeus definitely had a New Testament, even though he
did not give it this title, and he regarded its contents as
'scripture', even though this conception of it was not crucial
in his thought. Ordinarily, like the Valentinian Gnostics
against whom he was chiefly arguing, he differentiated (1)
the Old Testament scriptures, (2) the teaching of the Lord,
and (3) the teaching of the apostles and their followers. Only
Texte und Untersuchungen 79 (1961), 20-27.
I
2 Adv. haer. 1, 3, 6; F. Vernet in Dictionnaire de theo/ogie catho•
lique VU (Paris, 1923), 2417.
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTUR Y 153

once, indeed, did he refer to a verse from a Pauline epistle

(Gal. 5 :21) as from 'the scriptures'1-althougb he was deeply
concerned with proving that it was one and the same Spirit
which inspired the prophets, the apostles, and the elders of
the apostolic 8hurch (see Acts 15:28). Because the work of
the Spirit continued to be expressed in later writings, he
could refer to a passage from the Shepherd of Hermas as
from 'scripture' .2 In addition, he provided three quotations
from sayings of Jesus not found in the gospels and ascribed
to them an authority no different from that of the gospels
themselves.3
Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to provide an
explicit statement about the gospels universally recognized.
He stated that there were four, and only four; those written
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew and John
were apostles; Mark and Luke were disciples of Peter and
Paul. Irenaeus' gospel collection, like that to which Justin
earlier alluded, was thus entirely apostolic in origin, and
the rest of his New Testament (so to speak) consisted of
books written by three of the four apostles already men-
tioned. It is well known that be insisted upon the quaternity
of the gospels (analogous to the four winds, four corners of
the earth, etc.); it now appears that he also had four principal
apostles to write, and be responsible for, his collection of
New Testament books. Luke, Paul's disciple, wrote Acts,
as Irenaeus proves by using the methods of literary criticism;•
Paul wrote a number of epistles (apparently thirteen); and
John, the Lord's disciple, wrote not only a gospel but also
the book of Revelation and either one or two letters. In
tabular form Irenaeus' list of apostolic witnesses is as follows:

IAdv. haer. I, 6, 3.
2 Ibid., 4, 20, 2.
3 Ibid., 2, 46, 1; 5, 36, r; Epideixis 43 (ed. J.P. Smith, p. 182 n. 207).
4 See The Earliest Lives of Jesus (London- New York, 1961), 32.
154 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew Peter Paul John

Gospel 1 Peter Epistles Gospel
Sermons Acts Revelation
in Acts
Gospel of Gospel of Epistle(s)
Mark Luke

We have suggested that he knew thirteen Pauline epistles.

There seems to be an allusion 'to Hebrews I :3 at one point
in his volumes, and this allusion, without any reference to
Paul, is the only one;1 according to Stephanus Gobarus
(sixth century), Irenaeus rejected the Pauline authorship of
Hebrews.2 Eusebius' statement that he used 'testimonies'
from Hebrews and from the Wisdom of Solomon tells us
nothing about how be viewed the authorship or canonicity
of either book.3 He explicitly referred, however, to the titles
or the Pauline authorship of twelve epistles, including the
Pastorals but not Philemon (which he probably had no
occasion to use). In order of frequency, his quota6ons and
allusions run thus: I Corinthians (102), Romans {84),
Ephesians (37), Galatians (27), 2 Corinthians (18), Colos-
sians (18), Philippians (13), 2 Thessalonians (9), 1 Timothy
(5), 1 Timothy (5), Titus (4), and I Thessalonians (2).
We have already seen (Chapter VIII) that the Valentinian
Gnostic Ptolemaeus could speak of what 'Paul said in 1
Corinthians'. This kind of explicit reference appears again
in Irenaeus' writings, where we encounter mention of Paul's
letters to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the
Philippians, and the Colossians. There is also a reference
to the epistles (plural) to Timothy and a quotation from
Titus with the formula 'as Paul says'.' In citations from the
Adv. haer. 2, 30, 9.
I
2 Migne, PG 103, I 104D.
3 H. E. 5, 26.
4 Adv. haer. 3, 3, 3- 4.
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY 155
epistles to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians there is a
slight trace of confusion; usually the letters are differentiated
as 'first' and 'second', but once r Corinthians is called 'that
epistle which is to the Corinthians'1 and once 2 Thessalonians
is 'that epistle which is to the Thessalonians'.2 This kind of
citation recalls Clement's naming 1 Corinthians 'the epistle of
Paul the apostle' (r Clem. 47: 1), but Irenaeus is likely simply
to be quoting from memory.
When Irenaeus refers to what Peter said, he is usually
quoting from Peter's sermons in the books of Acts; but once,
when he speaks of 'what was said by Peter', be is referring
to I Peter.3 (There are no traces of 2 Peter or of Jude in
Irenaeus' writings.)
As for the Jobannine epistles, Irenaeus cites I John in
Adversus haereses 3, 16, 5 and, three paragraphs later, refers
back to the same epistle but quotes from 2 John. He may
have regarded 1-2 John as one letter; perhaps he was
quoting from memory. One should remember, however,
how difficult it was in antiquity to be sure that references
were correct. It was (and is) quite possible to read a Greek
manuscript in which there are no word divisions; but to
differentiate works rather similar in content was not easy.
Irenaeus also knew and prized the book of Revelation,
written by John, the Lord's disciple, author of the Gospel.'
In his writings there are only two possible allusions to
James, 5 and presumably be did not regard it as a theological
authority, universally accepted, if he knew it at all.
Irenaeus thus had a 'New Testament' of about twenty-two
books. The total will vary depending on whether or not we
include Philemon (as we probably should), regard 2 John
1 Ibid., 3, 1 I, 9.
2 Ibid., 4, 27, 4.
3 Ibid., 5, 7, 2.
4 Ibid., 5, 30, 2.
5 Ibid., 4, 16, 2 (James 2:23); 5, r, r (James 1:18; 22}.
156 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

as separate from 1 John (uncertain), and include Hermas

(unlikely?). Since l renaeus was so thoroughly convinced of
the mystical importance of numbers, we may wonder
whether or not be had a 'basic' collection comparable to his
'basic' Old Testament, in which there were also about
twenty-two books. But in view of the possible variations
existing in both collections we cannot make any definite
statement.
Much more important than the number or the order-
about which we know only that the gospels had the sequence
current today-is the fact that lrenaeus indubitably had a
clearly defined collection of apostolic books. He regarded
them as more important than the Old Testament, since he
viewed the Old Testament revelation as merely preparatory
to that· given by Christ to his apostles, and interpretated
the former in relation to the latter. He was not especially
concerned with the 'scriptural' status of these books, th-0ugh
he did regard them as 'scripture'.

The Muratorian Fragment

From the end of the second century comes an interesting

and important fragment called Muratorian because it was
published by L. A. Muratori in 1740. The date is known
because the author said that the Shepherd of Hermas
could not be read in church since it was written (1) recently
and (2) when Pius was bishop of Rome (142-55). A mention
of Rome simply as 'the city' suggests that the document
comes from the Roman church.
Something is missing at the beginning, but it must have
dealt with the first of the four gospels recognized by the
author, since he provides information about Mark, Luke,
and John (in that order). His statements about the evange-
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY 157
lists contain answers to criticisms largely based on the
differences among them; he is thus replying to Marcionites
(by setting Luke in the context of four books) and to
critics like the Alogi (by insisting on the importance of
John). He also- says that 'the acts of all the apostles are
written in one book' by Luke, a witness to these acts;
these statements are directed against admirers ·of the
apocryphal books of Acts. His list of Pauline epistles has
made a good deal of trouble for scholars, since it seems
to be so different from other lists. First he starts with
Corinthians, then continues with Galatians, and ends with
Romans. Then he says that he does not need to discuss
the individual epistles, 'since the blessed Paul himself,
following the order of his predecessor John, writes only to
seven churches by name, in the following order: (1) to the
Corinthians, (2) to the Ephesians, (3) to the Philippians, (4)
to the Colossians, (5) to the Galatians, (6) to the Thessa-
lonians, and (7) to the Romans'. What kind of order is
this?
In order to show the measure of variation in the Mura-
torian epistle-list from those found elsewhere we compare
its sequence with three others.

Marcion Muratorian 'ordinary' Beatty papyri

Galatians Romans Romans +
Hebrews
1-2 1- 2 1-2 1- 2
Corintbians Corinthians Corinthians Corinthians
Romans Galatians
1-2
Thessalonians
Laodiceans Epbesians Ephesians Ephesians
(=Eph.)
Galatians
Philippians Philippians Philippians
Colossians Colossians Colossians Colossians
158 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Marcion Muratorian 'ordinary' Beatty papyri

Philippi ans Galatians
I- 2 I- 2 I (-2)
Thessalonians Thessalonians Thessalonians
Romans

This table suggests that the basic conclusion of N. A. Dahl

is right: that the author of the Muratorian list, writing
primarily against Marcion, reflects the norm found in the
'ordinary' sequence but has transferred Marcion's favorites
to the end, perhaps in part because be is aiming at a chrono-
logical order.1 The 'ordinary' sequence is also reflected in the
Beatty papyri of the early third century, where the placing ol
Hebrews after Romans suggests that there was some doub1
as to where to put it. Perhaps there was also some doubl
about the location of the letter to the Galatians.
The fragment goes on to speak of personal letters which
have universal significance: these consist of Philemon, Titus,
and 1- 2 Timothy. The author also accepts Jude, 1-2 John,
the Wisdom of Solomon (though, he says, it was nol
written by Solomon himself), and the Revelations of John
and of Peter (though some will not permit the latter to be
read in church). The Shepherd of Hermas, he emphaticall)
states, is neither prophetic nor apostolic, and therefon
cannot be publicly read.
Beyond such books as these lie the forgeries of the Marcio-
nites- the epistles to the Laodiceans and theAlexandriansanc
a book of Marcionite psalms- and the writings of Valen-
tinus and Basilides, not to mention (and the mention ii
quite garbled in its present form) the treatises of the Mon-
tanists. The author may not have known much about th<
books he rejected, for the Marcionites' Laodiceans was th1
Church's Ephesians. Conceivably, the 'letter to the Alex
andrians' was what we know as Hebrews.
1 Zeitschriftfur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 52 (1961), 39-53
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY 159
I n many respects the basic list of the Muratorian fragment
is identical with what we have found in Irenaeus' writings.
The Muratorian omission of I Peter is striking, even shock-
ing; and it is very likely that, as Zahn held, a mention of
this letter has fallen out. As for the Muratorian criticism of
Hermas, we do not know whether or not I renaeus would
have considered the Shepherd as a book to be read in church.
We may suggest, however, that he would not have had it
publicly read, especially in view of its length.
This leaves us with two novelties in the Muratorian list.
First, Jude has come to be accepted, presumably because of
its militant advocacy of tradition and denunciation of
heretics. If the list included r Peter as well as Jude, its con-
tent was identical with what we find in Clement and Tertul-
lian, about the same t ime. Second, the Wisdom of Solomon
is somehow included in the New Testament list. This cannot
be right, unless the 'friends of Solomon' to whom the
author ascribes it were Christians. Perhaps they were;
perhaps he was aware that by Jews the book was almost
universally rejected, while Christians were 1naking increasing
use of it.

A Bodmer Papyrus

Finally, we should say something about one of the volumes

of the Bodmer papyri. In its original form, early in the third
century, it contained the apocryphal 'infancy gospel' of
James, the apocryphal letters of Paul from and to the Corin-
thians (3 Corinthians), 'Ode of Solomon' (the I Ith), the
Epistle of Jude, the paschal sermon by Melito of Sardis, a
fragment of a hymn, and r-2 Peter. This collection is very
strange. If one were to allow for the possibility of 'guilt by
association', one would infer that Jude and i-2 Peter were
regarded as edifying but not canonical. On the other hand,
160 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

the compiler of the papyrus book may well have been draw•
ing his materials from various kinds of collections-we de
not know what principle he followed-and, since Origen
very little later, like the copyist of the papyrus in Egypt
referred to Jude and I Peter and alluded to 2 Peter,1 we
should not deny that there these books were included ir
the canon.

From what we have seen, then, we should state that b~

this time the main outlines of the New Testament wen
perfectly clear and almost universally accepted. There wen
four gospels together with the book of Acts; there wen
usually thirteen Pauline epistles; there was also an epistl,
(rarely two) by Peter, one or two by John, one by Jude; anc
there was a Revelation by John. The status of Hebrews anc
3 John (unless included with 1-2 John) remained doubtful
There is no definite proof that anyone outside Egypt (se,
Chapter XI) regarded James and 2 Peter as canonical
although their later acceptance suggests that some churche
did so regard them.

The Anonymous against Montanism

We must admit, however, that the expression 'New Testa

ment' was rarely used in relation to a collection of booki
The passages where Irenaeus uses it are all fairly ambiguou
and may refer only to the new 'covenant'. As we have alread
said, Melito's ' books of the old covenant' do not necessaril
imply the existence of a New Testament. As W. C. va
Unnik has written, 'the first unequivocal connection bi
tween he kaine diatheke and Christian literature is found i
a refutation of Montanism by an anonymous autho
I Jude: Prine. 3, 2, 1; 'Peter in his first epistle': Prine. 2, s, 3.
 THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY 161

writing in 192/193'.1 This author (quoted by Eusebius, H.

E. 5, 16, 3) says that he bad hesitated to write an anti-
Montanist treatise 'from fear and extreme caution, lest per-
chance I might seem to some to be adding a new article or
clause to the -word of the new covenant (kaine diatheke) of
the gospel, to which no one who has intended to live in
accordance with the gospel itself may add, from which no
one may take away'. I t is evident that he is speaking about
a relatively closed collection of books, but that his own
treatise might conceivably be included in it. It is also evident
that he does not explicitly refer to the collection as 'the
New Testament'. Indeed, even in Origen's earlier period
(shortly before 231) the expression still seemed rather
strange. He speaks of 'what is called' the Old Testament
and the 'so styled' New Testament.2
We must therefore recognize that at the end of the second
century, although the New Testament books were regarded
as authoritative, apostolic, and indeed inspired, they were
not called 'the New Testament'.

r Texte und Untersuchungen 79 (1961), 217.

2 Origen, Joh. comm. 5, 8, quoted by Van Unnik, op. cit., 214 n. 1.
f
 XI
Alexandria and the· New Testament

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the Christian

community at Alexandria in relation to the Church's con-
cern for literary and theological questions-in short, for its
corning to terms with Graeco-Roman culture. Unfortunately,
what we know about the early history of the Church there is
by no means comparable to the significance of the historical
process. Certainly the Jewish philospher Philo, who later
strongly influenced Christian thought, lived and wrote there.
Possibly the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of
Barnabas are Alexandrian in origin. The Gnostic Basilides
certainly taught at Alexandria. But of'orthodox' Christianity
at Alexandria we know very little until the end of the second
century, when Clement tells us something about his teacher
Pantaenus. What he tells us is that Pantaenus was able to
explain why Hebrews did not bear Paul's name; this was
because Paul was an apostle to the gentiles and therefore
did not wish to write the Hebrews as if he were their
apostle.1 This statement shows that literary questions were
being asked at Alexandria; it also shows that Hebrews had
been accepted there, at least by Pantaenus and his circle.
Before we turn to Clement, however, we should recall
our claim that Basilides represents the ideas about the New
1 Eusebius, H. E. 6, 14.
 ALEXANDRJA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 163
Testament books which presumably were current, at least
in limited groups, at Alexandria two generations before
Clement's time. New Testament books were regarded, then
and there, as scripture. We need not expect Clement to
reveal inno\!ations in this respect. All we can look for is
greater precision in a choice of books, especially in relation
to the apocryphal writings produced by Gnostics or semi-
Gnostics during the second-century.
Another point which we must bear in mind as we look
at the works of the most important Alexandrian theologians,
Clement and Origen, is that they actually do reflect such
increasing precision and that the degree to which it is
absent or present depends, in part, on the circumstances in
which the works were written. We shall see, for example,
that Clement's views about the gospels became considerably
clearer at a definite point in his Stromata, and that Origen's
ideas were somewhat different, when expressed at Caesarea,
from what they were when be was at Alexandria. In addition,
we must remember that both writers were influenced by the
views of other Christians, not only those at Alexandria or,
in Origen's case, at Caesarea but also those who came to
Alexandria or were visited by Alexandrians. Generally
speaking, Clement and Origen reflect Alexandrian usage;
but at some points they may reflect views held elsewhere.
Finally, since Clement was the master of a private school
of Christian apologetics and of what he called 'Gnosis', we
cannot expect that his views of the canon will be as fully
representative of the Church's teaching as will those of
Origen, the real founder of the catechetical school at Alex-
andria under the bishop's direction. Where Clement wavers,
Origen is usually firm. This difference is largely due to the
difference between individual opinion and semi-official
Church doctrine. Clement's teaching at Alexandria came to
an end during the persecution under Septimius Severns
F*
164 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

(A.O. 202), when he left the city, never to return. At this

point the bishop Demetrius invited the young Origen to
direct a school under Church auspices, and he was its head
until, in conflict with Demetrius' successor, he too left
Alexandria, in 231. Dionysius, head of the school after
Origen, became bishop of Alexandria in 247.
We can understand the problem of the New Testament
canon at Alexandria only in relation to the history of these
schools and of their rivals, Hellenistic Jewish and Gnostic.
Especially in the writings of Clement there is a certain
vagueness about the distinction between writings generally
regarded as canonical and those which were never, or hardly
ever, accepted elsewhere. This point holds good for the Old
Testament as well as for the New. Clement's Greek Bible
included not only the books generally accepted by Jews
but, in addition, such writings as Baruch, Sirach, the
Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and 1-2 Maccabees.
He knew the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, in-
cluding the story ofSusanna.1 His Old Testament authorities
were not confined to this list, however, for in his works we
encounter I Enoch (which he says was written before the
Psalms)2 and 2 Esdras. 3 Conceivably he was introduced to
these books by the Epistle of Barnabas, which he valued
very highly, and to the Assumption of Moses by the Epistle
of Jude (for he quotes from the Assumption when giving
exegesis of Jude). 4 It is more likely, however, that he simply
knew a large collection of Jewish apocalyptic works not
unlike the collection which Barnabas knew, for in addition
he provides a fairly extensive quotation from an Apocalypse
of Zephaniah. 5
Full discussion by J. Ruwet in Biblica 29 (1948), 93-94.
I
2 Eclogae propheticae 53, 4; not in Stromata.
3 Str. 3, 100, 4.
4 Adumbr. Jud.; Str. I, 153- 54; 6, 132, 2- 3.
5 Str. 5, 77, 2.
 ALEXANDRIA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 165
On the fringe of the New Testament, and beyond it, there
were many documents which later, and probably by most
Christians outside Alexandria, were not regarded as
authoritative. Among these were gospels According to the
Hebrews and According to the Egyptians, not to mention
such an esoteric treatise as the Traditions of Matthias. 1
Clement's ideas about the status of such documents do not
seem to have been altogether clear. It is plain enough that
his own New Testament contained gospels, for in his
earlier writings he refers to those according to Matthew,
Luke, and John. But in Books 2 and 3 of bis Stromata his
ideas about canonical authority are a little vague; they get
clearer as he continues to write. In Stromata 2, 45, 5 he
introduces a quotation with the words, 'It is written in the
Gospel according to the Hebrews'. In Stromata 3, 45, 3 he
takes over a quotation from the Gospel according to the
Egyptians without naming the book. A little farther on (3,
63-66) he quotes from what he 'thinks' is Egyptians; in
other words, he has not checked his references. By the time
he writes Stromata 3, 92--93 he is finally sure that the quota-
tion does come from Egyptians; and here he stops to point
out that the Church accepts four gospels and four only;
Egyptians is not one of them. When he quotes from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews in Stromata 5, 96, 3-and
does not say what his source is-he may be reverting to his
older, more 'permissive' attitude, or he may be realizing
that he should not name the book. 2
Clement clearly recognized the book of Acts as scripture,
and he accepted all the Pauline epistles including Hebrews.
His own theory about Hebrews was different from that of
Pantaenus; be held that Paul wrote in Hebrew and that Luke

r Ruwet, op. cit., 401-2; Matthias in Str. 2, 45, s; 7, 82, 1.

2 Ibid., 396-98.
166 THE FORMATION OF THE NE\1/ TESTAMENT

translated his epistle into Greek. Tbe theory is untenable

but, like most such theories, ingenious.1
In addition, be acknowledged the Johannine authorship of
the Apocalypse2 and definitely accepted r Peter, 1-2 John,
and Jude as part of the New Testament. Also, he regarded
the Didache as scripture3 and viewed I Clement, Barnabas,
Hermas, and the Preaching and Revelation of Peter as inspired.
These books were either canonical or close to beingcanonical.4
In quoting from the gospels, Clement ordinarily relies on
them not as books but as sources for the teaching of Jesus;
explicit references to particular books are rather unusual.
(lo this respect Clement is closer to Irenaeus than to Ori gen.)
He does speak once of 'the Gospel according to Matthew',
and in a homily refers to Matthew's having added several
phrases to the Beatitudes.6 In the same homily he calls the
second gospel 'according to Mark',6 and in fragments of his
lost Hypotyposes be describes Mark's work as an evangelist
at Rome. 7 A letter discovered by Morton Smith reveals that
he knew several versions of Mark : the one generally used,
the forgery employed by Carpocratian Gnostics, and a
secret book which Mark wrote at Alexandria. The third
gospel was written by Luke, who also composed the Acts
of the Apostles. 8 John wrote the last, 'spiritual' gospel, as
well as 'the major epistle' (hence also a minor one- 'to
virgins') and the book of Revelation. 9
Clement bas a collection of fourteen Pauline epistles
(including Hebrews). He explicitly mentions all of them
1 Eusebius, H. E. 6, 14; for Acts, Sir. 6, 63, 5,
2 Paed. 2, 108, 3; Str. 6, 106, 2.
3 Str. 1, 100, 4.
4 Ruwet, op. cit., 391--96; 402- 3.
5 Str. 1, 47, 5; Quis div. salv. 17, 5.
6 Quis div. salv. 5, 1.
7 Stahlin ill 197-98, 206.
8 Paed. 2, 15, 2; Str. r, 145, 2.
9 Stahlin ill 197, 215; Str. 6, 106, 2.
 ALEXANDRIA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 167
except Philemoo, and we must assume that like Irenaeus he
passes over Philemon because he has no occasion to mention
it. He gives references to Romans, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, Titus, and Hebrews. When he men-
tions the Corinthian letters he sometimes differentiates tbem1
but more often does not; once be speaks of I Corinthians
as the letter to the Corinthiaos.1 Though he does' not name
either Thessalonian epistle, he quotes from both. And be
differentiates 2 Timothy from I Timothy, though while
referring to the second letter he actually quotes from the first. 3
In addition, Clement clearly quotes from I Peter ('the
epistle'') as well as from the Epistle of Jude; 6 but although
Eusebius says that be commented on all the general epistles
in his Hypotyposes, 6 it is most unlikely that be discussed
either James or 2 Peter, of which there are no traces in his
major works. We cannot tell whether or not he knew 3 John.
Clement's use of non-canonical New Testament materials
presents us with a mixture of continuity and change.
Throughout the Stromata he makes use of 1 Clement, Barn-
abas, and Hermas; but be employs the Didache only in
Stromata I, 100, 4- and there he does not name the work.
The Preaching of Peter occurs in the first two books of the
Stromata, but not again until the sixth. Perhaps during the
interval Clement was uncertain whether or not to use it.
Similarly, the Traditions of Matthias, used by Nicolaitan
Gnostics according to Stromata 3, 26, 3, are quoted in
Stromata 2 and 7, but not in the interval.7

I Paed. I, 33, 1; Sir. 2, 136, 5; 4, 100, I.

2 Str. 5, 80, 4.
3 Sir. 3, 53, 4 (1 Tim. 5 :9-10).
4 Str. 3, 110, I; 4, 129, 2.
5 Paed. 3, 44, 4; Str. 3, II, 2.
6 H. E. 6, 14, I.
7 The Apocalypse ofPeter, like I Enoch, is found only in tbeEcfogae
propheticae.
168 THE FORMATION OF TH E NEW TESTAMENT
Similarly, while the Gnostic ApeUes had quoted 'Become
approved money-changers' as 'in the gospel',1 and Clement
himself cites the saying as from scripture in Stromata I, 177,
2, thereafter-presumably because his ideas about scripture
are getting clearer- he never quotes it, although he does
allude to it. On the other hand, it is in Stromata 5, 63, 7
that Clement can write these words: 'in some gospel it says,
"Without grudging, the Lord commanded, My mystery is
for me and for the sons of my house" '. The use of the
expression ' some gospel' at this point is unique; conceivably
Clement had in mind the secret Alexandrian Gospel of
Mark mentioned in the fragment which Morton Smith dis-
covered, but we do not know that this was so. Given the
fact which he bad acknowledged, that there are four and
only four gospels, he should not have provided this quota-
tion.
In fact, generally speaking Clement does not become
more cautious in his use of unwritten sayings ascribed by
himself or by others to Jesus. Four quotations occur in the
first two books of the Stromata; these are as follows. (1)
'You have seen your brother; you have seen your God'
(Str. 1, 94, 5; quoted again in 2, 70, 5, with the addition of
'Know thyself' 2). (2) 'Ask for the great things and the small
ones will be added for you' (Str. I, 158, 2). (3) The words
about money-changers, already mentioned. But immedi-
arely after stating that there are only four gospels Clement
proceeds to quote phrases derived from I Corinthians 7
and ascribes them to the Lord (Str. 3, 97). In the remaining
books there are two quotations from such sayings along with
four allusions. It would appear that in spite of bis statement
about the four gospels ' transmitted to us' Clement does not
I Epiphanius, Haer. 44, 2, 6.
2 Compare the Gnostic ' know yourselves' in the Gospel of Thomas,
Saying 2.
 ALEXANDRIA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 169
hesitate to make use of other traditions or transmissions.
We shall see that Origen does the same thing.
One might ask why early Christian writers like Clement
felt free to use unwritten traditions so frequently. Apparently
there are several factors in the answer. (1) Christians, like
their Gnostic competitors, lived in an environment that
was not totally bookish. Such traditions were in circulation
and they inevitably used them. (2) Within the New Testa-
ment itself (see Chapter III) there was considerable prece-
dent for the use of traditional sayings. Paul referred to them
at least in I Thessalonians and I Corinthians, as well as in the
sermon ascribed to him in Acts 20:18-35. (3) T heological
authority was still provided not so much by a New Testament
as by a gospel reflected in the New Testament books.
In the writings of Clement it is possible to detect traces of
increasing, though inconsistent, conservatism in regard to
the New Testament books. Much the same situation is to be
found in the writings of Origen, partly because of his move
from Alexandria to Caesarea, where he undoubtedly found
that different books were accepted and rejected. In general,
however, be favored inclusiveness, as we can see from his
letter to Africanus. Africanus was a polymath who had
come to question the authenticity of several Old Testament
books because they were not accepted by Jews. Origen 's reply
made clear the view that whatever was in the Septuagint
should be used by Christians, and be therefore made use of
the Greek Daniel (with Bel and the Dragon and Susanna),
not to mention I and 3 Baruch, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees,
Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
In addition, he knew the Assumption of Moses, the Apo-
calypse of Elijah, the Ascension of Isaiah, a book of Iannes
and Iambres, a Prayer of Joseph, and some of the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs. Apparently he 'drew the line at
works containing strongly eschatological apocalyptic
170 TFIE FORMATI ON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

materials. Thus, unlike Clement, he never used 2 Esdras and

while at first be accepted r Enoch (Prine. I, 3, 3; 4, 4, 8) he
later questioned its authority (!oh. comm. 6, 42 ; Num. horn.
8, 2). Perhaps he also became aware that it was favored by
Gnostics.
As for the New Testament, he explicitly rejected the
apocryphal gospels of Thomas, Matthias, and the Twelve,
along with that according to the Egyptians (Luc. horn. I).
Early in his career he relied on the Acts of Paul, though not
as scripture, but later he rejected the book. We do not know
why he did so; perhaps he had become acquainted with the
opinion (expressed byTertuliian in his work De baptismo 17)
that it bad been forged by an admirer of Paul. In his view
there were four gospels and one book of Acts.1
It is significant that, like Clement, Origen makes use of
unwritten sayings of Jesus, such as the one about 'asking
for great things' (De oratione 2, 2; Se/. in Pss. 4, 2), . that
about money-changers (Ioh. comm. 19, 2 calls it a 'command
of Jesus'; Matt. comm. 17, 31 refers to it as 'according to
the scripture'). It is also significant that, as we should expect,
he uses them much less frequently than Clement did. We
may also note that in his list of condemned gospels (Luc.
horn. I) he does not include the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, though he is well aware that it lacks ecclesiastical
authorization and authority (Jer. horn. 15, 4; Joh. comm. 2,
12; Matt. comm. 15, 14). It is not so definitely unorthodox
-and by allegorizing it he tries to make it orthodox-as
Egyptians or Thomas or the Gospel of the Twelve.
Origen has no clear principle on the basis of which he
can definitely reject apocryphal traditions or writings.
Indeed, he claims that Paul used the Apocalypse of Elijah
in I Corinthians 2 :92 and that Ignatius of Antioch relied on
1 On the whole question see J. Ruwet in Biblica 23 (1942), 18-42.
2 Ibid., 30 (1949), 517- 19.
 ALEXANDRlA AND THE NEW TESTAMEN T 17 1

a 'Teaching of Peter' in Smyrnaeans 3 :2 (Prine. I, praef. 8).

Apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition thus favored the use
of a wide variety of books.
Origen's method of citing the New Testament books is
much like Clement's. This is to say that he is continuing the
tradition , already in evidence in the works of Irenaeus,
according to which the New Testament books we"re clearly
differentiated and could be used as literary authorities. He
refers to the four gospels by their authors' names and
explicitly mentions all fourteen of the Pauline epistles-
although in his Commentary on John he sometimes refers
to I Corinthians and I Thessalonians simply as Corinthians
and Thessalonians. Unlike his predecessors, probably be-
cause he wrote so much more than they did, he definitely
mentions Paul's letter to Philemon. 1
It would appear that at first Origen was content to speak
of Paul as the author of Hebrews but that, later on, he con-
sidered the literary problems involved and reached the con-
clusion that, though it contains Paul's ideas, it was written
by someone else, perhaps Luke or Clement of Rome, both
of whom were disciples of the apostles. Ruwet has suggested
that his doubts about it arose because he knew that it was
not accepted at Rome, 2 but this hypothesis is bard to demon-
strate. It is just as likely that he knew about previous dis-
cussions of the epistle at Alexandria.
As for the general epistles, he expressed doubts about
James, 2-3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter, though the form of his
expressions suggests that he was not really worried about
either James or Jude. 3 It would appear that while he was at
Alexandria be regarded the Didacl1e, Hermas and Barnabas
as canonical but that after removing to Caesarea he became
1 Jer. horn. 20, 2; Matt. comm. ser. 66; 72.
2 Biblica 23 (1942), 24- 26.
3 Ibid., 29-32.
172 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

aware that they were not accepted there. 1 His use of I

Clement does not show whether he regarded it as canonical
or not, though if he was willing to admit that Clement
might have written Hebrews he obviously could have
accepted Clement's own letter. He expressed doubts about
the Kerygma Petri of which Clement of Alexandria was so
fond (Joh. comm. 13, 17).
The books which Origen regarded as authoritative were
therefore those written by apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, [I]
Peter, [1] John, Revelation, James, and Jude) and disciples
of apostles (Mark, Luke [-A.cts], Hermas, Barnabas, and
perhaps Clement). Other books lacked early and continuous
attestation, were probably not written by apostles or their
disciples, and perhaps were not easily reconcilable with
accepted writings (Gospel of the Hebrews-Matthew; 2-3
John-I John; 2 Peter- I Peter). At Caesarea he en-
countered, and shared, an attitude more conservative than
that at .Alexandria in his earlier years. Though he did not
set forth a fully systematic scheme for classifying the books,
it would appear that he worked with three basic categories:
(1) books universally accepted; (2) books questioned; and
(3) books definitely rejected.
Both Clement and Origen freely refer to the New Testa-
ment books, and to the other semi-canonical books they
employ, as 'scripture'. In an Alexandrian environment this
usage is to be expected; we recall that Basilides taught at
Alexandria (Chapter VIII). It may be that the usage is not
to be explained simply on the basis of geography, however,
for both Clement and Origen were allegorizers. This is to
say that they believed there were meanings latent in the
New Testament texts and that these meanings were due to
the work of the Holy Spirit, inspirer of the New Testament
authors. Gnostic exegetes had already argued that in the
I Ibid. , 33- 38.
 ALEXANDRIA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 173
sayings of Jesus and the words of the apostles there were
hidden meanings which they alone knew. More orthodox
exegetes had insisted that the Old Testament writings could
be understood correctly only by Christians. What Clement
and Origen do is to treat the New Testament writings as the
Gnostics had treated the words of Jesus and the apostles
and as their predecessors had treated the Old Testament.
By cailing the New Testament writings 'scripture' they imply
that in them are spiritual meanings available only to exegetes
also inspired by the Spirit.1
The process of defining the New Testament cannot be
traced with much accuracy between the death of Origen in
253 and the time early in the fourth century when Eusebius
of Caesarea wrote his Church History. It is evident, however,
that the sifting which Origen reflects continued during the
next generation. Indeed, a famous treatise by Dionysius of
Alexandria On Promises contains an analysis of the
language, style, and thought of the Gospel and (first)
Epistle of John, on the one hand, and Revelation, on the
other. Dionysius intends to show that two authors were
involved. Since, according to tradition, an apostle wrote the
Gospel and the Epistle and another John wrote Revelation,
obviously the latter work was written by a disciple of the
apostles and therefore did not possess quite the same degree
of authority as the other books. Dionysius thus reflects the
effort to delineate a canon within the New Testament
canon; he plays Gospel against Revelation at the latter's
expense-in order to diminish the apocalyptic fervor of
Egyptian monks in his diocese.
Much of our information about the views of the Alex-
andrians on the canon comes to us from Eusebius. He is
their heir, as he is the heir of Origen's library at Caesarea.
It is therefore no surprise when we find his New Testament
1 On this point see The Letter and tire Spirit (London. 1957).
174 THE FORMATION OF TH E NEW TESTAMEN T

to be essentially Alexandrian in content. In the Church

History (3, 25) he presents a rather confusing classification
of New Testament books. It is clearer- naturally enough-
in regard to what is 'acknowledged' and what is definitely
heretical than in regard to what lies between these cate-
gories. What is universally acknowledged consists of the four
gospels, the Pauline epistles (he does not say how many), r
John, I Peter, and perhaps the Revelation of John. What is
absolutely rejected includes the apocryphal gospels ascribed
to Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and others, and the apocryphal
Acts of Andrew, John, and others. In between lie the books
classified as disputed (James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2-3 John)
and as spurious (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hennas, Revela-
tion of Peter; Barnabas, Didachai [sic.], and perhaps the
Revelation of John); some, he says, add the Gospel of the
Hebrews to this category.
Obviously the main outlines of the canon are clear. There
is some question about the Epistle to the Hebrews because
Eusebius has heard that the Roman church rejects it (3, 3, 5)
and has not checked his information. There is even more
question about Revelation, since Eusebius cannot decide
where to classify it-or the Gospel of the Hebrews.
His basic view is clearly that of the Alexandrians. He
regards Mark as a disciple of Peter (referring to the opinion
of Clement of Alexandria, 2, 15, r) and Luke as a disciple
of Paul (3, 4, 7). Like Origen, he has his doubts about the
Gospel of the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2- 3 John.
His category of spurious books partly reflects Origen's later
views and partly goes beyond them to reject Barnabas.
Origen had doubted the authenticity of the Acts of Paul and
the Shepherd of Hermas; Clement, but not Origen, had used
the Revelation of Peter and the Didache. The points at which
Eusebius goes beyond Origen are those at which apocalyptic
writings (Revelation, Barnabas) · are in question. As a
 ALEXANDR[A AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 175
representative of the new friendliness between church and
state, Eusebius regards eschatology as realized in the Con-
stantinian empire. He quotes Dionysius on the Apocalypse
in full but does not check his information about the relatively
timeless Epistle to the Hebrews.
We see that the influential list which Eusebius provided
was largely based on the views current at Alexandria and
Caesarea a generation or two before his time. This is almost
to say that in his old age Origen created the final form of the
New Testament canon. Of course he did not do so in
isolation from the churches in which he taught. But his
achievement means that in the shaping of the canon the theo-
logical and the literary-historical factors were inseparable.
The canon is the product of Alexandrian learning applied
to the tradition. We see both kinds of judgrnent at work in
the writings of Origen, Dionysius, and finally Eusebius.
When Athanasius of Alexandria, in bis festal letter of 367,
set forth a New Testament canon identical with the one
current today, he was doing no more than summing up the
results of his predecessors' researches and conclusions.
 XII
The New Testament of the early Church Fathers

We should not suppose that the conclusions of Eusebius

or even those of Athanasius, were immediately accepted
everywhere by everyone. The Catechetical Lectures by Cyril
of Jerusalem, delivered in his see city about A.D. 350, show
clearly enough that doubts about Revelation, though not
about Hebrews, persisted there. Cyril states that there are
only four gospels and goes out of his way to attack the
Gospel of Thomas, which he says was written by the Mani-
chees. 'Perfumed by the sweet smell of the appellation
"gospel", it corrupts the souls of simpler believers.' Beyond
the gospels are the Acts 'of the twelve apostles'-i.e. only
the canonical book, not apocryphal competitors. Then come
the seven 'catholic epistles' of James and Peter, John and
Jude. The whole New Testament is given a confirmatory seal
by the fourteen (thus including Hebrews) epistles of Paul.
Cyril adds that all other books are secondary to these, and
that books not read in churches are not to be read privately.1
An example of rather wild variety is provided by a list,
probably from the fourth century, inserted in the Codex
Claromontanus (sixth century, containing the Pauline
epistles). This list contains all the books of the Bible. Its
New Testament consists of four gospels (Matthew, John,
I Cat. 4, 36; PG. 33, 500-1.
 THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS 177
Mark, Luke-apostles first, disciples second), the epistles of
Paul (Romans, 1- 2 Co1inthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1-2
Timothy, Titus, Colossians, Philemon!), 'ad Petrum' 1-2 (!),
James, 1- 2-3 John, Jude, Barnabas, Revelation of John,
Acts, the Shepherd (of Hermas), the Acts of Paul, and the
Revelation of Peter. The order and number of the Pauline
epistles is very peculiar, and the last four works had been-
or perhaps were to be-classified as 'spurious' by Eusebius.
Zahn thought that about 300 the list came from the environs
of Alexandria, where the last four works were certainly
read; but it is just as likely that it reflects the usage of some
backward community, dependent upon Alexandria, at a
later date.
The 'Cheltenham list', probably from about 360 and pos-
sibly from North Africa, contains four gospels (Matthew,
Mark, John, Luke-as in the 'Curetonian' Syriac version),
thirteen epistles of Paul, Acts, Revelation, three epistles of
John (or 'only one'), and two epistles of Peter (or 'only one').
The author seems to be combining the usage of his local
community with that more typically Syrian, for it was in
Syria _that only I John and I Peter were accepted for a long
time.
But while variety is characteristic of these lists accidentally
preserved, the writings of the great theologians like Atha-
nasius point toward a New Testament essentially uniform.
From the late fourth century we possess two versified lists
which were accepted at the Council of Constantinople in
A.D. 962. One, from Gregory of Nazianzus, states the
authenticity of all the New Testament books commonly
received, but does not mention Revelation; the other, from
Amphilochius of Iconium, is more complex, since it admits
that some persons (wrongly) reject Hebrews; some accept
only James, 1 Peter, and I John, while otliers add 2-3 John,
2 Peter, and Jude. Amphilochius does not state what his
178 THE FORMATION OF THE NE\V TESTAMENT

own opinion is. As for Revelation, some accept it, but most
people call it spurious. He concludes by clain,ing that this
is 'the most trustworthy canon of the inspired scriptures·-
in spite of his refusal to come to a decision about son1e of
the books in dispute. Presun,ably be did not wisb to enter
into acrimonious controversy over the four catJ,olic epistles
in question. 1
Even n1ore in1portant than \Vestern doubts about the
authenticity of Hebrews were Eastern doubts about the
canonicity of the catholic or general epistles ascribed to
James, Peter, John, and Jude. Some Eastern ,vritiogs and
writers reflect acceptance of none of them, but since they
come from the fourth and fifth centuries we n1ay suspect
that this rejection is due to learned theory or considerations
of simplicity (perhaps Marcionite or generally Gnostic in
origin) rather than to tradition. Most of the Eastern ,vriters
accept at least r Peter and I John, the two accepted by
Diodorus of Tarsus and Nestorius and kno,vn to Ephrem
Syrus. In the Peshitto, the works of John Chrysostom, and
those of Theodoret, we find these two and also the letter of
James. Semi-mathematical analysis of the possible varieties
of usage suggests iliat the choices are not random. The
collection of the general epistles had as its nucleus I Peter
and I John; to these were added (1) the minor Johanniue
epistle or epistles,1 (2) either James or Jude. son1etimes
both of them,3 and finally (3) 2 Peter.~ The likelihood that
the rejection of all the letters was late is suggested by
the fact that the nucleus was known to almost all the
Greek Christian ,vriters of the first two centuries after the
Apostolic Failiers.
1 For the tex'ts of these passages see F. \V. Grosheide. Some Early
Lists of the .Book$ of the 1Vew Tesramem (Leiden, r948).
2 lrenaeus; probably Theophilus.
3 Jude: Clement of Ale."<nndria. Tt'rtulliM; James : see above.
4 2 Peter is not atte.sted before the time of Origen.
 THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS 179
The later development of the canon (the word 'canon' in
the sense of 'list' first occurs in the passage from Amphilo-
chius to which we have referred) can be described rather
briefly. With the Gnostic crisis long past, the Church was
generally free, in the course of the fourth century and the
early filth, to create a canon which would be inclusive
rather than exclusive. Among the Latins, James and 2 Peter
had at first been unknown or rejected; neither occurs in
the Old Latin ver.sion or in the Muratorian list. Hebrews,
though in the Old Latin version, had not been accepted by
Gaius of Rome or Cyprian, and it is not mentioned in the
Muratorianum. By the end of the fourth century, Latin
writers accepted all these books. At the eastern edge of the
Christian world, there continued to be considerable doubt
about the book of Revelation and about the general epistles,
or at least James, 2 Peter, Jude, and 2-3 John. In both the
West and the East, then, previous academic-ecclesiastical
decisions played a considerable part. The situation described
by Eusebius did not change much.
Finally, however, the West accepted Hebrews and the East
accepted the general epistles and the Apocalypse. From the
sixth century onwards, except for minor aberrations such
as occasional acceptance of the forged letter of Paul to the
Laodiceans, Christians regarded the twenty-seven books of
the New Testament as canonical.
We have seen that the process of canonization lasted for
centuries. Its methodology was not always clear, and the most
important factor involved seems to have been prior ·u sage
as known to the writers who discussed the subject. Apostolic
authorship was often understood rather freely- necessarily
so in view of the fact that neither Mark nor Luke was an
apostle.
The crucial period in the history of the canon was the
second century and the early third, from the time when
180 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christian writers began to use the New Testament books

as authoritative and inspired to the time when they found
it necessary to select some books, out of the mass of sup-
posed early Christian literature, and reject others. We do
not know what valuable works, now lost, they could have
preserved had they wished to do so. We know only what
was in fact preserved, and it would appear that this gives
us a fairly reliable impression of the Church's life and faith
in the first century. If we were to suppose that such a
treatise as the Gospel of Thomas should have been treated
as canonical, we should have to assume that early Christian
theology was what it was not, i.e., Gnostic.1 This is not to
say that what was preserved permits us to reconstruct a
uniform, monolithic early Christian theology. There was a
great deal or variety in the books which most Christians
accepted, and the inclusion or further books in East and
West during the fourth and fifth centuries meant that the
variety _was increased. It was necessary, however, for some
limits to be set to the flowering of Christian speculation,
and such limits were set by insistence upon loyalty to the
tradition as classically expressed by the apostles and their
disciples. It is this tradition, in written form, which we
possess in the New Testament as it stands today.

1 Cf. B. Gaertner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (New

York, 1961).
 XIII
The formation of the New Testament

The formation of the New Testament was a process, ex-

tending over at least two centuries, in the course of which
the oral teaching and preaching of Jesus and the apostles
(1) was recorded in written form and was circulated among
the Christian churches, (2) was accepted by these churches
in certain formulations and not in others, (3) was regarded
first as the key to the Old Testament, then as equal to it in
authority, and (4) came to be regarded as inspired 'scripture'.
The process took place within the Christian communities
during the period in which greater clarity and precision
were achieved in relation to doctrine, discipline, and worship.
The New Testament books came to be regarded as providing
norms for doctrine and guidance for Christian behavior;
they were read in the course of Christian worship. Th is
situation made it necessary for the churches to determine
exactly what was in the New Testament and what was not.
There was little doubt about most of the books supposed to
have been written by the apostles and their disciples,
although members of various sects often rejected individual
documents or groups of documents. Gnostics, for example,
almost invariably rejected the Pastoral E_pistles, since in
them something much like Gnosticism was being attacked.
The conservative Jewish-Christian Ebionites accepted none
182 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TEST AMEN T

of the Pauline epistles. At the other extreme (perhaps),

conservative opponents of Montanist prophecy criticized
the Gospel of John and Revelation, since the Montanists
were appealing to them. But in general second-century
Christians regarded as authoritative four gospels, thirteen
Pauline epistles, r Peter, I John, and R evelation (sometimes
also the book of Acts).
Real difficulties arose in regard to Hebrews, since it was
inadequately attested as written by Paul, and in regard to
the minor Catholic epistles, since they had rarely been used
by Christians in the early second century. The question of
Pauline authorship in the case of Hebrews was overcome,
rather than answered, at Alexandria by Christians who knew
that the letter had been used in I Clement and that, whether
precisely Pauline or not, it reflected early Christian theo-
logical thinking. It is not clear how James, Jude, and 2 Peter
were brought into the authoritative collections. The ideas
of James could obviously be related to those of the synoptic
gospels; Jude was useful in dealing with heresy; and 2 Peter
may have won acceptance because of its author's identifi-
cation of himself as the author of I Peter (2 Pet. 3: 1). But
we cannot be sure that these reasons were really responsible
for the acceptance of the books. On the other hand, the style
and the content of 2 and 3 John inevitably led those who
accepted the Gospel and I John to accept these little letters
also.
The most difficult problem of all concerned the various
documents which lay beyond the fringe of the Old Testament
and the generally accepted collection of New Testament
books. The Old Testament itself had not been very clearly
defined in the fi rst century, and the Greek version called the
Septuagint contains several books which second-century
Jews did not accept. In addition, there were many apoca-
lypses in circulation, some of them used by New Testament
 THE FOR MA TlON OF THE NHW TEST AMENT 183
writers, and these books too were rejected by most Jews in
the second century. Christian writers, though with some
hesitation, continued to employ them. Again, since the
formation of the New Testament was a gradual process, oral
traditions supposedly derived from Jesus and the apostles,
as well as books containing such traditions, were used by
most second-century Christians along with the books
generally accepted. Very few writers refrained from using
both oral traditions and one or more of the apocryphal
gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses.
The grounds on which acceptance or rejection took place
were not very clearly defined. In essence, there were two
such grounds. (1) A book had either been handed down
traditionally or it had not. This test, when based on any-
thing beyond assertion by the leader of a Christian com-
munity, involved research in the church libraries which we
see emerging at the end of the second century and the
beginning of the third (though obviously smaller collections
existed at an earlier time). The conclusions of administrators
and scholars, doubtless related to the memories of the older
members of the communities, were presumably correct,
generally speaking, but in relation to individual documents
whose a·11thority was being questioned there was obviously
room for error. Second-century Christian leaders traveled
a good deaJ. The extent of their travels implies not only that
local differences would tend to be minimized but also that
local differences would tend to be forgotten. This is to say
that 'tradition' in regard to particular books almost means
'actual situation' in regard to them. (2) A book was either
written by an apostle, or by a disciple of an apostle, or it
was not. This is to say that the title of a book, inscribed at
its beginning or end, was very important.. The title had a
presumption in its favor. To be sure, modern scholars some-
times tend to suppose that this notion is wrong, and that the
184 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

titles of New Testament books have practically no claim to

acceptance. Obviously such external testimony can be wrong;
but one might do worse than to agree with Bishop Light-
foot (1876): 'If there is substantial ground for suspicion,
the suspicion bas its weight, but not otherwise.'1 We should
bold that the early Christians were right when they tended
to accept writings ascribed to apostles as apostolic. It must
be admitted, however, that various kinds of tests needed to be
applied to the documents in question, and that the arguments
of Christians like Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Origen, and
Dionysius of Alexandria show that the tests were some-
times being applied. These tests, based on textual, literary,
and historical analysis, do not always lead to conclusive
results but (with or without the use of computers) they are
all we have. Unfortunately, it does not appear that early
Christians often or, indeed, usually applied them. Their
ideas about what was or was not apostolic seem to have been
based on the general idea that, since they themselves were
maintaining the apostolic faith, whatever was not in harmony
with their understanding of it cannot have· been apostolic.
Ideas of doctrinal variety or development were not generally
accepted, in spite of Origen's insistence upon the notion
that in some respects doctrine did develop.
If we admit the seriousness of the difficulties latent in
early Christian notions about the continuity of tradition
and the question of apostolic authorship, it is fairly clear
that, whatever Christians in the late second century may
have supposed, the selection and 'canonization' of New
Testament documents was partly the product of late second-
century attitudes. Certainly these attitudes were not simply
second-century attitudes; they were based on the life and
thought of previous generations of Christians. At the same
I Quoted by J. M. Cotterill, Modem Criticism and Clement's
Epistles to Virgins (Edinburgh, I 884), 59.
 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TEST AMENT 185
time, however, they were based on the widespread, almost
universal, presupposition that Christianity had remained
precisely what it had been from the beginning; and this pre-
supposition was maintained by denying that heretics,
especially Gnostic heretics, had based their faith or their
knowledge upon older traditions. This denial is open to
question, since it would appear that both Gnostics and more
orthodox Christians often diverged from a common starting-
point, and that some heresies (e.g. Judaistic Christianity)
in part reflected a form of Christian thinking later outmoded.
In order to avoid these difficulties, we should regard the
New Testament as the product of the 'great Church' which
transcended local differences. The books of the New Testa-
ment, not necessarily always accepted by everyone, were
those which came to be universally accepted by the dver-
whelming majority of Christians; the same books, not
necessarily apostolic, were those which commended them-
selves as reflecting the basic beliefs of the earliest Church.
It may appear that by treating the history of canonization
in this way we are undercutting the authority of both the
New Testament and the Church. Such is not the case, how-
ever, for we should regard both the New Testament and the
Church as having been brought into existence in response
to the life and work of Jesus, who in the view of Christians
was God's incarnate Word. When we use the word 'response'
it may seem that we are treating the New Testament and
the Church as human products and nothing more. Admitted-
ly, and certainly, we are treating them as human products,
for that is what they indisputably are. But from the stand-
point of Christian theology there are no products of this
kind that are not human. The 'divine initiative' can doubtless
exist apart from human responses (the .creation of the
universe provides an obvious example), but the life of the
Church and the witness of the New Testament books cannot
 186 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(theologically speaking) be viewed as in any sense divine
apart from their 'humanity'. The 'divine human encounter'
bas to be a real encounter, with two parties involved.
It may also appear that the authority of New Testament
and Church comes to be rather circular. The Church uses
the documents it has selected in order to provide its own
credentials. The documents are chosen so as to prove what
the Church wants proved. Here we can only agree. The
authority is circular. The point, however, is that both Church
and New Testament are only secondary authorities. They
are circular in that they lie on the edge of a circle drawn
around the center, which is Christ. The authority of Christ,
mediated through his apostles, was expressed in both Church
and New Testament. The Church interprets the New Testa-
ment; in turn, the New Testament reminds the Church of
the nature of the apostolic testimony and can correct the
Church's presentation of the gospel.
• The .early history of the formation of the New Testament
does not suggest that all parts ofit possessed equal authority,
any more than the history of the Church suggests that all
Christians have possessed equal authority. There was a
central core of New Testament books, consisting of the four
gospels and thirteen Pauline epistles, and it is very clear that
these books were accepted both earlier and more generally
than the other books were. We may like to think that James,
for example, provides as good a witness to the essence of
Christianity as the major Pauline epistles do. Second-
century Christians, it is clear, did not think so. On the other
hand, the fact that books like James and Jude and 2 Peter
finally came to be recognized as belonging to the New Testa-
ment indicates that there were aspects of these books which
most Christians considered important, if only for the sake
of balance and-even-variety. A canon from which these
books were absent would suggest that Christianity is
 THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 187
narrower and more uniform than is actually the case. Those
who claim that 2 Peter, for example, brings 'Greek' elements
into Christian thinking are neglecting the extent to which it
actually is, and should be, Greek as well as 'Hebrew'.
Finally, historically valuable though the apocryphal books
are in providing information about the ideas of sectarian
groups and their ideas of tradition-and perhaps in some
instances for preserving first-century materials-those who
believe that in general the Church was right as against its
opponents cannot reverse its decisions about these docu-
ments. The apocryphal books reflect responses to Jesus, but
the kinds of responses they contain are usually severely
conditioned both by their authors' notions that they under-
stand Jesus better than the apostles did and by the view
that he really wanted to convey an esoteric spiritual
doctrine which the Church's gospels do not set forth.
Usually these authors deny his humanity, thus cutting him
(and themselves) off both from the historical life of the
Church and from the historical life of mankind.
It is in the New Testament, and the New Testament alone,
that we find the written record of the apostolic response to
the life of Jesus, though it is in the Church (with all its
imperfections) that this response continues, or can continue,
to be expressed.
 Select Bibliography

Aland, K. The Problem of the New Testament Canon. London, 1962

Allegro, J. M. 'Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological
Midrasim', Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958), 350-4
Allegro, J. M . 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature',
Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956), 174-87
Audet, J .-P. La Didache: instructions des apotres. Paris, 1958
Audet, J.-P. 'A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament
in Greek Transcription', Journal of Theological Studies l (1950),
135-54
Barth, C. 'Die Interpretationen des Neuen Testaments in der Valen-
tinianischen Gnosis', Texle und Untersuchungen 37, 3, Leipzig, 19 u
Barthelemy, D. 'Redecouverte d'un chamon manquant de l'histoire de
la Septante', Revue Biblique 6o ( 1953), 18-29 ·
Bell, H. I.-Skeat, T. C. Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other
Early Christian Papyri. London, 1935
Benoit, A. 'Irenee Adversus haereses IV 17, et les Testimonia', Texte
und Unte,suchungen 19 (1961), 20-7
Blackman, E. C. Marcion and his Influence. London, 1948
Campenhausen, H. von. 'Polycarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe',
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
· (Philos.-hist. Kl.), 1951, no. 2
Cross, F. L. (ed.). The Jung Codex. London, 1955
Dahl, N. A. 'Welche Ordnung der Paulusbriefe wird vorn Murator-
ischen Kanon vorausgesetzt?', Zeitschrift fur die 11eulestame11tliche
Wissenschaft 52 (1961), 39-53
Danielou, J. 'Les traditions secretes des Apotres', Eranos-Jahrbuch 31
(1962), 199-215
Goodspeed, E . J. The Formation of the New Testam~nt. Chicago, 1926
Goodspeed, E. J. The Meaning of Ephesi.ans. Chicago, 1933
Grant, R . M. The Apostolic Fathers I. New York, 1964
 '
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grant, R . M. The Apostolic Fathers II (with H. H. Graham). Nev.
York, 1965
Grant, R. M. The Earliest Lives of Jesus. London-New York, 1961
Grant, R. M. Gnosticism: an Anthology. London-New York, 1961
Grant, R. M. The Letter and the Spirit. London, 1957
Grant, R. M. The Secret Sayings of Jesus (with D. N. Freedman anc
W.R. Schoedel). New York-London, 196o
Grant, R. M. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (revisec
edition). New York, 1964; London, 1965
Grant, R. M. 'The Fragments of the Greek Apologists and Irenaeus'
J. N. Birdsall- R. W. Thomson (eds.), Biblical and Patristic Studie.
in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (Freiburg, 1963), 179-218
Grant, R. M. ' Hermeneutics and Tradition in Ignatius of Antioch'
E. Castelli (ed.), Ermeneutica e tradizione (Rome, r963), 183-201
Grant, R. M. 'Like Children', Harvard Theological Review 39 (r946)
71-3
Grant, R. M. 'Tatian (Or. 30) and the Gnostics', Journal of Theo
logical Studies 15 (1964), 65--9
Grosheide, F. W. Some Early Lists of the Books ofthe New Testament
Leiden, 1948
Gutwenger, E . 'The Anti-Marcionite Prologues', Theological Studies·
(1946), 393- 409
Hanson, R. P. C. Origen's Doctrine of Tradition. London, 1954
Harnack, A. Das Neue Testament um das Jahre 200. Freiburg, 1889
Harnack, A. 'Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott' (2nd ed.)
Texte und Untersuch1111gen 45. Leipzig, 1924
Heard, R. G. 'The Old Gospel Prologues', Journal of Theologica
Studies 6 (1955), 1-16
Jacquier, E. Le Nouveau Testament dans l'Eglise chretienne I (2nd ed.]
Paris, 19n
Jiilicher, A.- Fascher, E. Einleitung in das Neue Testament (7th ed.)
Tiibingen, 1931, 451- 558
Katz, P. 'The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria·
Zeitschriftfiir die neutesramentliche Wissenschaft 47 (1956), 191-21·
Knox, J. Marcion and the New Testament. Chicago, 1942
Knox, J ..Philemon among the Letters of Paul. Chicago, 1935
Koester, H. 'Synoptische Ueberlieferungen bei den Apostolische
Viitem', Texte und U11tersuchw1gen 65. Berlin, 1957
Koester, H. 'Die aiisserkanonischen Herrenworte', Zeitschrift fu r di
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 48 (1957), 220-37
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 191
Leipold!, J. Geschiclrte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vol.). Leipzig•
1907-8
Lietzmann, H. 'Wie wurden die Bucher des Neuen Testaments heilige
Schrift?' Texte u11d U11tersuc/111ngen 68 (Berlin, 1958), 15-98
Maurer, C. lg11atius von Antiochien und das Johannesevange/ium.
Zurich, 1949 .
Mayeda, G. Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment Papyrus Egerton 2. Berne, 1946
Perler, 0. 'Das-vierte Makkabaeerbuch, Ignatius von Antioohien und
die aeltesten Martyrerberichte', Rivista di archeo/ogia cristiana 25
(1949), 47- 72
Qujspel, G . Ptolimie : Lei/re a Flora. Paris, 1949
Roberts, C. H. An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel.
Manchester, 1935
Ruwet, J. 'Clement d'Alexandrie, Canon des Ecritures et Apocryphes',
Biblica 29 (1948), 240-71
Ruwet, J. 'Les apocryphes dans J'ceuvre d'Origene', Bib/ica 23 (1942),
18-42; 24 (1943), 18-58; 25 (1944), 143-66
Ryle, H. E. The Canon of the Old Testament. London, 1892
Sagnard, F. M. Clement d'Alexandrie: Extraits de Theodore. Paris
1948
Smith, M. See New York Times, 30 December 1960
Sundberg, A. C., Jr. 'The Old Testament of the Early Church', Harvard
Theological Review 51 (1958), 205-26
Testuz, M. Papyrus Bodmer V. Geneva, 1958
Testuz, M. Papyrus Bodmer VII- IX. Geneva, 1959
Testuz, M. Papyrus Bodmer X-XII. Geneva, 1959
Testuz, M. Papyrus Bodmer XIII. Geneva, 1960
Van Unnik, W. C. 'The "Gospel of Truth" and the New Testament'.
F. L. Cross (ed.), The Jung Codex (London, 1955), 79-129
Van Unnik, W. C. ''H KaW'T} SLa87JK7J-a Problem in the early history
·of the Canon', Texte und Untersuchungen 79 (Berlin, 1961), 212-27
Werner, J. ' Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus', Texte und Untersuchungen
6, 2. Leipzig, 1889
Zahn, T. Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons
und der alrkirchlichen Literatur (10 vols.). Erlangen, 1881-1929
Zahn, T. Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2nd
ed.). Leipzig, 1904
 Index

A-ANCIENT WRITERS AND WRITINGS

I Old Testament and apocryphal Solomon, Wisdom of, 33, 38-40, 43,
books 140, 154, 158- 9, 164, 169
Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, To bit, 43, I 05, I 64, I 69
41-7, 80, 82, 164, 169 Twelve Prophets, book of, 13, 33,
Aristeas, Epistle of, 48 37- 8, 40, 67-8
Baruch, books of, 41 - 3, 70-1, 88, Zephaniah, Apocalypse of, I 64
107, 164
Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran), 14, 32- 2 New Testament and apocryphal
3, 41 books; oral tradition
Eldad and Modat, 46 Acts, apocryphal: Andrew, 174;
Elijah, Apocalypse of, 169- 70 Paul, 170, l 74
l Enoch, 33, 41 , 47, 106-7, 109, 164, Acts of the Apostles, 81-2, 126, 136,
170 148, 153, 157, 165, 170, 176
2 Esdras, 35-6, 44, 48; 73, 88, 107, Apocryphal writings of Peter, I 11-
164, 170 12, 127, 149- 50, 158, 166-7, 171-
Esther, 34--5, 38-9, 82 2, 174
Greek Old Testament, 14, 33, 44, Epistle of James, 34, 59, 155, 167,
47-50, 164, 169 171, 176-9
Epistle(s) of John, 30, 72, I SS, I 58-
Isaiah, Ascension of, 47, 49 9, 166-7, 171, 173, 176-9
Joseph, Prayer of, l 69 Epistle of Jude, 33, 158-60, 164,
Judith, 43, 82, I 64, I 69 167, 171, 174, 176-9
Epistles of Paul, 15-21, 25- 7, 31,
Maccabees, books of, 39, 42, 92, 54--9, 72, 74, 78, 80-2, 84, 86,
164, 169 92-6, 102-6, I 14, 122-3, 126-30,
Moses, Assumption of, 33, 109, 164, 136-8, J 40, 142-4, I 53- 5, 157-8,
169 166-7, 171, 174, 176- 7 (see
Hebrews, Pastoral epistles)
Proverbs, 15, 34--5, 37-40, 45-6, Epistles of Peter: I Peter, 19, 21, 30,
97, 105, 142 59, 72, 81, 96-7, 104--5, 155, 159,
Septuagint, see Greek Old T esta• 167, 171, 174, 176-8; 2 Peter,
ment 30-1, 159- 60, 167,172.174, 176- 8
194 INDEX
Gospels, apocryphal: Egyptians, 3 Christian, Jewish, and Gnostic
85, 111-12, 115, 128-9, 165; writers and writings
Hebrews, 29, 56, 72, 102, 110-12,
115,165,170, 174; Matthias, 170; Alogi, 150-1
Philip, 114-15, 137; Thomas, 85, Ampbilochius of lconium, 177-8
112- 15, 128- 9, 137, 168, 170, 174, Apelles (Marcionite), 60, 168
176, 180; Truth, 126- 7; Twelve, Apostolic Constitutions, 42, 44
the, 170; Unknown, 115-19 Athenagoras (apologist), 42, 139-
Gospels, composition of, 22; col- 40, 146
lection of, 27-9; four, 112, 128-9, Barnabas (Epistle of), 43, 45-6, 88
153, 156-7, 165, 167-8, 170, 174, 106-8, 164, 166, 171-2, 174
176-7; oral tradition and, 53, 59, Basilides (Gnostic), 121-4, 162
70 (see John , Luke, Mark,
Matthew) 1 Clement, 22, 25, 45, 77- 83, 166
172
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 33, 42, 2 Clement, 19- 20, 43, 83-7, 146
73, 81, 104, 126, 138, 141, 151, Clement of Alexandria, 29, 39, 42
154, 158, 162, 165- 6, 171, 174, 48, 60, 137, 164-9
176-9 Cyril of Jerusalem, l 76
John, Gospel of, 28, 53, 69, 71, 73, Didache, 64-8, 146, 166-7, 171- 2
98-9, 107, 114-19, 122, 127--8, 174
135-7, 140-1, 150-1, 153-4, 156- Diodorus of Tarsus, 178
7, 166, 173-4, 176-7 Dionysius of Alexandria, 164, 173
Luke, Gospel of, 22, 28, 83, 100-2, Ephrem Syrus, 178
Ill, 114,122,125, 127-8, 135-6, Epiphanius, 36-8, 151
146-7, 153-4, 156-7, 166, 172, Eusebius, 42, 48, 173-5
176-7
Oaius of Rome, 150-1
Mark, Gospel of, 27- 9, 71, 73-4, Gnostics, 43, 47, 60, 111, 121-30
116, 127-8, 135, 140, 153-4, 156-
7, 166, 172, 176-7 Heracleon (Gnostic), 111, 127, 13S
Matthew, Gospel of, 65- 8, 71, 74, Hermas (author of Shepherd), 23_.
100-1, 107, 114, 116,122, 127- 8, 46, 72- 5, 153, 166, 171- 2, 174
135, 140, 142, 146-7, 152-4, 166, Hippolytus, 42- 3, 122
172, 176-7
Matthias, Traditions of, 167 Ignatius of Antioch, 19, 23, 42, 41
88- 102, 147
Oral tradition, 52-61, 67, 69-72, 75, Irenaeus, 41, 42, 48, 60, 106, 151-
82, 84-5, 99-102, 113- 14, 118- 20, Jerome, 61, I 02
137, 168-70 John Chrysostom, 178
Josephus, 34-5, 42, 48, 52
Pastoral Epistles, 25, 30-1, 83, 96, Julius Africa.nus, 20, 48, 169
103-4, 107, 138, 140, 142-3, 154, Justin (apologist), 39-40, 48-50, 6<
158, 166-7, 171 11 I, 131-7, 146
Revelation of John, 22, 72, 136, 145, Lactantius (apologist), 49, 60
151, 153, 155, 166, 172-4, 177-9 Lists of books, 36-9, 156-9, 176-'.
 I NDEX 195
Ma.rcion (Gnostic), 8, 125--6, 136, Polycal'J) of Smyrna, 19, 23, 46, 88,
141, 152, 158 102-6, 151
Marcus (Gnostic), 129 Ptolemaeus (Gnostic), 127
Melito of Sa.rdis, 38-9, 138-9,
159 Qumran, community at, 14, 32-3, 41
Montanists, 150-1, 160-1 Serapion of Antioch, 111- 12, 148-
Muratorian list, I.S6-9 50
Nestorius, 178 Talmud, Babylonian, 36
Origen, 20, 31, 35, 39, 42-3, 48, 60, Tatian (Gnostic?), 137-9, 141
102, 111-12, 170-3 Tertullian, 42, 48, 170
Theodore!, 118
Papias of Hierapolis, 43, 68-72 Theodotus (Gnostic), 128-9
Philo of Alexandria, 34, 42, 48, Theophilus of Antioch (apologist),
52 40-1 , 141-4, 147, 150

8-M0D£RN SCHOLARS

Allegro, J. M. , 32 Hendrix, P., 122

Audet, J.-P., 36-8, 68
Jacquier, E., 122-3
Barnikol, E., 143 Jercmias, J., 118
Barth~lemy, D., 134 Katz, P., 39
Bauer, W., 19 Kittel, G., 59
BeU, H. I., 115, 117 Knox, J., 27, 126
Bousset, W. , 134 Koester, H., 11, 79, 98- 101 , 119
Campenhausen, H . von, 103-4 Lietzrnann, H., 26
Corwin, V., 92 Lightfoot, J.B., 184
Cotterill, J. M., I 84 Lohse, B., 49
Dahl, N . A., 158 Maurer, C., 98-9
Dobschutz, E. von, I 50 Mayeda, G., 116, I 18
Dodd, C. H., 53, 119
Nestle, E., 82
Ffesseman-van Leer, E., IOI N orth , R., 113
Gaertner, B., 180 Overbeck, F., l 35
Giet, S., 73
Giversen, S., 114-15 Pellegrino, M. , 139
Glasson, T. F., 101 Pelletier, A., 48
Goodspeed, E. J., 26 Perler, O., 42
Goodwin, C., JOI Porter, F. C., 59
Prigcnt, P., 49
Haenchen, E., 135
Hanson, R . P. C., 47 Reinach, T., 35
Harnack, A. von, 11 Resch, A., 59- 60
196 INDEX
Riesenfeld, H., 88 Ubaldi, P., 139
Ropes, J. H., 59
Ruwet, J., 11, 164-6, 170-2 Van Unnik, W. C., 11, 126, 160-1
Ryle, H. E., 34 Volz, H., 44

Schoedel, W. R., 103, 113 Waszink, J. H., 122

Schweizer, E., I 03 Wifstrand, A., 139
Skeat, T. C., 115, 117 Wilson, R. McL., 114
Smith, M., 29, 81, 166, 168
Zahn, T., 11
Turner, C. H ., 68 Zuntz, G., 25