"Wilhelm Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha; I Gospel And Related Writings"
Archive.org
See other formats

VOLUME ONE: GOSPELS AND RELATED WRITINGS 
Revised Edition 


EDITED BY WILHELM SCHNEEMELCHER 


English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson 






NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA 


I 




NEW TESTAMENT 
APOCRYPHA 

Revised Edition 
edited by 

Wilhelm Schneemelcher 

English translation edited by 
R. McL.Wilson 


I 


Gospels 

AND RELATED WRITINGS 


James Clarke & Co 
Westminster John Knox Press 

LOUISVILLE • LONDON 



Published in Great Britain by 
James Clarke & Co. Ltd 
P.O. Box 60 
Cambridge CB1 2NT 


Published in the United States by 
Westminster John Knox Press 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396 


British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data 
[Bible. N T. Apocryphal books. English, 1991] New 
Testament Apocrypha. - 2nd ed 
I. Schnecmclcher. Wilhelm 
2299 

ISBN 0-227-67915-6 


Library of Congress Cataloging -in Publication Data 
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress 
ISBN 0-664-22721-X 

Copyright © J.C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck) TUbingen. 1990 
English Translation Copyright © James Clarke & Co. Ltd 1991 


Paperback edition published by 
Westminster John Knox Press, 2003 


Printed in the United States of America 
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 — 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 


All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in My form or by My 
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by My information 
storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. 



Preface to the English Edition 


For many years the standard work in English in this field, indeed for practical 
purposes the only work, was The Apocryphal New Testament edited by M.R. 
James and first published in 1924. By the late fifties, however, for all its 
unquestioned merits, it could be said to suffer from two defects: it was then more 
than thirty years old, and consequently took no account of the discoveries made 
in that period; and it provided but little in the way of guidance to the literature 
devoted to these apocryphal writings. Both these deficiencies were made good in 
the third edition of its German counterpart, the Neutestamentliche Apokryphen , 
originally edited by Edgar Hennecke and directed in its latest form by Wilhelm 
Schneemelcher. An English edition (vol. 1,1963; vol. 11,1965) met with acordial 
reception, and went into a second impression some ten years later. 

‘Hennecke-Schneemelcher’ is now, however, some thirty years old, and 
much has happened in these three decades. For one thing, the Nag Hammadi 
library is now accessible, and can be evaluated; for another, there has been a 
considerable accession to the literature in this whole area. A new edition is 
therefore very welcome, and it is appropriate that the English version also should 
be revised and updated (some German works have gone through six or seven 
editions, but their English versions have remained unchanged from the first!). 

The policy adopted is that which governed the previous English edition: to 
present an English version, checked and corrected to make it in every way 
possible an adequate tool for the use of the English-speaking reader. Some parts 
are completely new, and these have been translated from scratch. At other points 
much of the earlier edition has been retained, and here use has been made of the 
contributions of my colleagues in that earlier volume. Dr George Ogg and Prof. 
A.J.B. Higgins, both now deceased, and Dr R E. Taylor. The whole has, however, 
been rigorously checked and revised against the new German edition, and the 
translation editor must assume the full responsibility. Dr Einar Thomassen has 
kindly undertaken the translation of three sections: VIII 1, the Book of Thomas; 
VIII 4, the Apocryphon of James; and VIII 5, the Dialogue of the Saviour. 

One point should be made, to avoid possible misunderstanding (such as 
afflicted one reviewer of the earlier first volume!): the several introductions are 
straight translations from the German, except for the 'residue' of the section 
contributed by H.C. Puech, for which a copy of the original French was also made 
available. The texts, however, presented something of a problem, which was 
envisaged from the outset in the earlier edition: merely to translate the German 
here would have produced something at some remove from the originals, 
whereas completely new translations could scarcely have been put under the 
names of the German contributors. The solution adopted then as now was to 



New Testament Apocrypha 


check the translations against the originals in Latin, Greek or Coptic, to ensure 
that they were English versions of the original and not merely versions at third 
hand. Some things go more easily into English than into German! 

It is hoped that the second volume will follow at not too great an interval after 
the first. 

R. McL. Wilson 



Preface to Sixth German Edition 


The first volume of the Neuiestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Ubersetzung , 
founded in 1904 by Edgar Hennecke (t 1951), appeared in a third edition in 1959. 
A fourth edition which came out in 1968 was simply a corrected reprint 
of the third edition. The present sixth edition is a corrected reprint of the fifth 
edition, in which printing errors have been removed; at one point only some 
supplementary material has been introduced. 

The complete recasting of the third (fourth) edition was necessary because in 
recent years there has been a considerable amount of work in the area of research 
into the apocrypha. 

In recent years there has been so much research in this area that a completely 
new recasting of the work seemed appropriate. In particular the texts of the 
Coptic gnostic library of Nag Hammadi, which in 1959 could not yet be 
comprehensively evaluated, have in the interval been opened up and made 
generally accessible. A number of works from this find belong beyond doubt to 
the kinds of text the extant witnesses of which are assembled in this volume. In 
deciding which texts from Nag Hammadi ought to be included in our collection, 
I have profited from the advice of C. Colpe, H.-M. Schenke and H.J. Klimkeit, 
to whom I would express my cordial thanks. 

Through the inclusion of texts from Nag Hammadi the book has become more 
voluminous than in the previous edition. The remaining sections had in part to be 
completely remodelled, but in part the drafting of the previous edition could be 
taken over in a revised form. I have to thank all the collaborators who have shared 
in this edition. We may also remember with gratitude those who through their 
work contributed to the success of the previous edition, but in the interval have 
been called from this life. 

R. Kassel, R. Merkelbach and R. Slichel have advised me in many questions 
of detail. A. de Santos Otero has frequently helped with his special knowledge. 
K. Schaferdiek, who already in the previous edition rendered great service, has 
been a true helper this time also. G. Ahn has assisted me in correcting the proofs. 
To all those named I would express my hearty thanks. 

Finally I must also thank the publisher G. Siebeck and his colleagues (espe¬ 
cially R. Pflug) for their understanding collaboration. For over eighty years this 
work has been taken care of by the Tubingen publishing house - a notable 
testimony to the solid continuity of this house. 

The second volume “Apostolisches. Apokalyptik und Verwandtes”appeared 
in 1989. 


Wilhelm Schneemelcher 




Table of Contents 


Preface to the English Edition 
Preface to Sixth German Edition 
Abbreviations 

General Introduction ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 9 

1. The concepts: canon, testament, apocrypha 10 

2. On the history of the New Testament canon 15 

a) Canon catalogues: 34 

1) The Canon Muratori 34 

2) The catalogue in the Codex Claromontanus 37 

3) The so-called Decretum Gelasianum 38 

4) The Stichometry of Nicephorus 41 

5) Catalogue of the Sixty canonical books 42 

b) Testimonies of Church Fathers from the 3rd and 4th centuries: 43 

1) Origen 43 

2) Eusebius of Caesarea 47 

3) Athanasius 49 

3. New Testament apocrypha 50 

4. The continuance and influence of the New Testament apocrypha 62 

5. On the history of research into the apocryphal literature 66 

A. GOSPELS: NON-BIBLIC AL MATERIAL ABOUT JESUS 77 

Introduction ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 77 

I. Isolated Sayings of the Lord (Otfried Hofius) 88 

II. Fragments of Unknown Gospels ( Joachim Jeremias + 

and Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 92 

Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 92 

1. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840 ( Joachim Jeremias t 

and Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 94 

2. Papyrus Egerton 2 (Joachim Jeremias + 

and Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 96 

3. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224 ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 100 

4. Papyrus Cairensis 10 735 (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 101 

5. The so-called Fayyum Fragment (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 102 

6. The Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 103 

Appendix: the ‘secret Gospel’ of Mark (H. Merkel) 106 

in. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas ( Beate Blatz) 110 

IV. Jewish-Christian Gospels (Philipp Vielhauer + and Georg Strecker) 134 
Introduction: The Testimonies of the Early Church regarding 
Jewish-Christian Gospels 135 



1. The Gospel of the Nazareans 154 

2. The Gospel of the Ebionites 166 

3. The Gospel of the Hebrews 172 

V. The Gospel of Philip ( Hans-Martin Schenke) 179 

VI. The Gospel of the Egyptians ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 209 

VIL The Gospel of Peter ( Christian Maurer and Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 216 

Vm. Dialogues of the Redeemer 228 

Introduction ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 228 

1. The Book of Thomas ( Hans-Martin Schenke; 

translated by Einar Thomassen) 232 

2. The Freer Logion ( Joachim Jeremias t) 248 

3. Epistula Apostolorum (C. Detlef G. Muller) 249 

4. The Apocryphon of James ( Danlcwart Kirchner; 

translated by Einar Thomassen) 285 

5. The Dialogue of the Saviour ( Beate Blatz; 

translated by Einar Thomassen) 300 

6. The First Apocalypse of James (Wolf-Peter Funk) 313 

7. The Second Apocalypse of James (Wolf-Peter Funk) 327 

8. The Letter of Peter to Philip ( Hans-Gebhard Bethge) 342 

IX. Other Gnostic Gospels and Related Literature 

( Henri-Charles Puech t revised by Beate Blatz) 354 

Preliminary Note ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 354 

A. Gospels under general titles 356 

1. The Gospel of the Four Heavenly Regions 356 

2. The Gospel of Perfection 357 

3. The Gospel of Truth 358 

B. Gospels under the name of an Old Testament Figure 360 

C. Gospels current, directly or indirectly, under the name of Jesus, 

and similar works 361 

1. The Sophia Jesu Christi 361 

2. The Dialogue of the Redeemer (see p.300) 

3. The Pistis Sophia 361 

4. The two Books of Jeu 370 

D. Gospels attributed to the Apostles as a group 374 

1. The Gospel of the Twelve (or: of the Twelve Apostles) 374 

2. The (Kukean) Gospel of the Twelve 375 

3. The Memoria Apostolorum 376 

4. The (Manichean) Gospel of the Twelve Apostles 378 

5. The Gospel of the Seventy 380 

6. Other ‘Gospels of the Twelve Apostles’ 381 

E. Gospels under the name of an Apostle 382 

1. The Gospel of Philip (see p. 179) 

2. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas (see p. 110) 

3. The Book of Thomas (see p. 232) 

4. The Gospel according to Matthias. 

The Traditions of Matthias 382 



5. The Gospel of Judas 386 

6. The Apocryphon of John 387 

7. Fragments of a Dialogue between John and Jesus 388 

8. The Apocryphon of James (Apocryphon Jacobi) (see p. 285) 

9. The Gospel of Bartholomew (see p. 537) 

F. Gospels under the names of holy women 390 

1. The Questions of Mary 390 

2. The Gospel of Mary 391 

3. The ‘Genna Marias’ 395 

G. Gospels attributed to an arch-heretic 397 

1. The Gospel of Cerinthus 397 

2. The Gospel of Basilides 397 

3. The Gospel of Marcion 399 

4. The Gospel of Apelles 399 

5. The Gospel of Bardesanes 400 

6. The Gospel of Mani 401 

Appendix 411 

H. Gospels under the Names of their Users 413 

X. Infancy Gospels (Oscar Cullmann) 414 

General Introduction 414 

I. The Protevangelium of James 421 

2. The Infancy Story of Thomas 439 

3. Gnostic Legends 453 

4. Later Infancy Gospels 456 

A) Extracts from the Arabic Infancy Gospel 460 

a) Legends of the child Jesus in Egypt 460 

b) The children who were changed into goats 461 

B) Extracts from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 462 

a) Ox and ass at the manger 462 

b) Legends of the child Jesus in Egypt 462 

C) Extract from the Latin Infancy Gospel in the Arundel 

Manuscript 466 

D) Extract from the Life of John according to Serapion 467 

XI. The Relatives of Jesus (Wolfgang A. Bienert) 470 

XII. The Work and Sufferings of Jesus 489 

1. The Witness of Josephus ( Testimonium Flavianum) 

(' Wolfgang A. Bienert) 489 

2. The Abgar Legend ( Han J.W.Drijvers) 492 

3. The Gospel of Nicodemus. Acts of Pilate and Christ’s Descent 

into Hell (Felix Scheidweiler +) 501 

4. The Gospel of Bartholomew (Felix Scheidweiler t 

/ Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 537 

Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 537 

a) The Questions of Bartholomew (Felix Scheidweiler + 

/ Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 539 

b) Coptic Bartholomew Texts (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 553 

5. The Gospel of Gamaliel (M.-A. van den Oudenrijn t) 558 




Abbreviations 


For abbreviations of journals and scries, the lists of Schwertncr (Theologische 
Realenzyklopddie, Abkwrzungsverzeichms , 1976) and RGG 1 (1957) have in general been 
used. For the texts from Nag Hammadi (apart from the Book of Thomas) reference may 
be made to the list of abbreviations in James M. Robinson’s introductory volume to the 
Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Leiden 1984), pp. 96ff., which provides 
a comparative table of the forms used in English, French and German. See also The Nag 
Hammadi Library in English, 3rd rev. cd., 1988, pp. xiii-xiv. A few abbreviations 
frequently employed arc listed below. 


Aa Acta apostolorum apocrypha I, ed. Lipisius. 1891; II 1 and 2, 

ed. Bonnet, 1898 and 1903 (reprint 1959) 

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 

Apa Apocalypses apocryphae, ed. C.Tischendorf. 1866 

BHG Bibliotheca hagiographica Graces, M957 

BHL Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina, 2 1949 

BHO Bibliotheca hagiographica onentalis. 1910 

CChrSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, 1953ff. 

CChrSG Corpus Christianorum, Senes Graeca, 1976ff. 

CChrSA Corpus Christianorum. Senes Apocryphorum, 1983ff. 

CSCO Corpus scriptorum Christianorum onentalium 

CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiaslicorum Latinorum, Vienna 

Ea Evangelia apocrypha, cd. C. von Tischcndorf, 2 1876 

Erbctta Mario Erbctta. Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testament. I-HI. 1966-1981 

FS Feslschnft 

GCS Die griechischcn christlichen Schnftstcller der ersten drei 

Jahrhundertc. Berlin 

James M.RJames, The Apocryphal New Testament 

KIT Kleine Texte flir Vorlcsungen und Ubungen 

Moraldi Luigi Moraldi, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento. 2 vols., 1971 

NHC Nag Hammadi Codex 

NHLE The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson 

Leiden 1977 (3rd revised ed. 1988) 

NHS Nag Hammadi Studies 

NTApo 1 Neuetestamentliche Apokryphen in deulscher Uberzetzung, ed. 

Edgar Hcnneckc, 1904 
NTApo 2 id., 2nd edition, 1924 

NTApo 5 id., 3rd edition, ed. E. Hcnneckc and W. Schneemelcher, 

1959/1964 (repnnt M968; ET 1963, 1965; 2nd impression 1973, 1974) 
NTApoHandb Handbuch :u den Neuetestamentlichen Apokryphen, cd. 

Edgar Hcnneckc, 1904 

Patrologiae cursus complctus. Accuranlc J.-P. Migne, Scries Graeca 


PG 



New Testament Apocrypha 


RGG’ 
de Santos 
Surowicyski 

TDN’T 

TRE 

TU 

Viclhauer, 
Lit. gesch. 


Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, } 1956fT. 

Los Evangelios apocrifos (BAC 148), 4 1984, 4 1988 
Apokryphy Nowego Testamentu, Pod redakeja ks. Marka 
Starowieyskiego. vol. I, Lublin 1980 

Theological Dictionary of the NT, tr. G.W. Bromiley (ET of 
Theologisches Wdrterbuch :um NT, 1933ff.) 

Theologische Realenzyklopddie,\91bff. 

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 
Philipp Viclhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, 1975 



I 

Gospels 

AND RELATED WRITINGS 




General Introduction 

Wilhelm Schneemelcher 

The concept ‘New Testament apocrypha’ is probably formed on the analogy of 
that of the ‘Old Testament apocrypha'. The latter designation is generally given 
to the writings of which Luther says that while they are not regarded as being 
on an equality with Holy Writ, they yet make useful and good reading’. But even 
for the Old Testament apocrypha this definition is by no means adequate to 
cover the complex situation with which we are concerned. 1 For the so-called 
‘New Testament apocrypha’ it is quite unserviceable, since here it is not a 
question of writings the canonicity of which was for a long time canvassed. 
Rather we have to do with writings which were excluded from ecclesiastical 
usage very early, to a small extent even before the completion of the canon 
at the end of the 2nd century and in the course of the 3rd, and which then 
continued to have a separate existence among groups outside the Great Church, 
or again with works which for various motives availed themselves of the forms 
and Gattungen of the New Testament, for didactic purposes, for propaganda or 
for entertainment. 

An exact definition of this general concept is certainly difficult, and will have 
to take very diverse aspects into consideration (see below, pp.SOff.). A necessary 
pre-condition for any attempt to characterise the mass of diverse writings under 
a uniform concept, and thereby distinguish them from other forms and Gattungen 
as a special kind of literature in terms of form and content, is a clarification of 
certain terms often inexactly used, and a knowledge of the main features of the 
history of the New Testament canon. 


9 



New Testament Apocrypha 


I. The concepts: canon, testament, apocrypha 

Literature: Th. Zahn, Grundrifi der Geschichie des ml. Kano ns. 2 1904; G. Quell and 

J. Behm, Art. 5um&rpi, Sca&tiKn , in TDNT n. 1964. 104-134; H. Oppel, KANQN.Zmt 
Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes and seiner lateinische Emsprechungen, 1937; 

H. W.Beyer. Art. kocvcuv, in TDNT. 1965, pp. 596-602; R.Meyer and A.Oepke. Art., 
Kpumco ktX.* Supplement on the Canon and the Apocrypha’, in TDNT III, 1965,978- 
1000; H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, ET 1972; 
P. Vielhauer. Geschichie der urchristlichen Literatur, 1975, pp. 774ff.; W.Schneemelcher, 
Art. Bibel lIl.inTREVI. 1980.22fT. (Lit.); E. Grosser, Der Alte Bund imNeuen, 1985, 
pp. 1-134. 

I. The term ‘canon’ as a designation for the Bible is first attested in the middle 
of the 4th century: Canon LIX of the Council of Laodicea (middle of the 4th cent.) 
decrees that ‘books not canonised’ (aicavcmcrca (hf&ta) are not to be read in the 
Church; only the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments are allowed. 
These canonical writings are then enumerated in Canon LX.' 

In his 39th Festal Letter in 367, Athanasius of Alexandria defined his position 
on the question of the books recognised in the Church, and gave a list of the 
acknowledged books of the Old and New Testaments (for text, see below 
pp.49f.). Athanasius here speaks of the writings which have been ‘canonised, 
handed down and confirmed as divine’, but sets the lists of the books of the Old 
and New Testaments under the concept of ‘testament ’(8ca9nicn). We may deduce 
from this that in the middle of the 4th century the concepts canon’ and 
‘testament’ (or ‘covenant’) still marched side by side, although probably in the 
sense that ‘canon’ was used as a designation for the whole Bible, i.e. for the 
collection of the holy scriptures recognised by the Church, and that the two parts 
of the Bible are occasionally described by ‘testament’. 2 

The Greek word tcavojv is formed from kovti, a loan-word from the Semitic 
with the basic meaning ‘reed’; the Greek form Ktrwa is also attested. 3 The 
Hebrew HiJ? is used with the meanings ‘reed, com-stalk’, then also in the 
further sense of ‘measuring-reed, measuring-rod, measuring-stick’. The 
Septuagint however never translates this by the Greek kovcuv, which in 

it appears only in three places: Judith 13:6 (here ‘bed-post’), Micah 7:4 (‘an 
inexplicable flaw in translation’, Beyer, p.596) and 4 Macc. 7:21. In the last- 
mentioned passage it is said: ‘Should not a man apex; 6'Xov x6v -rife qnAxxwMpuxq 
Kavova cpiAoocKpcuv (who philosophises according to the whole canon of 
philosophy) have control over desire?’ Here kovcuv is used (as also in Philo) in 
the general Greek sense: kovcuv is the rule, the precept, indeed almost the law. 
The word is transferred to various spheres of life, kovcuv becomes a description 
for the norm, the completed shape, the standard or criterion. The application of 
this term to the ethical or philosophical domain was certainly important The 
moral law is described as kovcuv, and specific ideals are exalted into kovove^. It 
can be shown from Epicurus and Epictetus how important this idea became for 
philosophy. * To philosophise means nothing other than to investigate and 
establish standards, kovove^’ (Epicf Diss. Dll. 24). ‘The Kovov&q are then the 
basic rules for the right use of free will’ (Beyer, p. 598). 

It has been thought that the lists of exemplary authors drawn up by the 
Alexandrian grammarians (e.g. Aristophanes of Byzantium) were described by 


1 0 




New Testament Apocrypha 


this term. But this is only 'a modem catachresis that originated in the 18th 
century’(David Ruhnkcn, 1768). ‘From its frequent use in ethics, kovojv always 
retained the meaning of rule or model. ’ 4 The lists of the Alexandrians were called 
mvaKzq and not tcavoveq. This should be borne in mind in the discussion of the 
taking over of the concept by the Church. 

In the NT kovcov occurs four times (Gal. 6:16; 2 Cor. 10:13, 15, 16). Here 
too the word is probably used with the meaning of ‘norm, rule of conduct, 
standard’, even though in the difficult passage 2 Cor. 10:13-16 the sense is not 
quite so unambiguous as in Gal 6:16. 5 

The word is widely used in the Church with the meaning ‘norm, standard’ 
(1 Clem. 1.3; 41.1, here with an ethical aspect). In the second half of the 2nd 
century it is then more frequently employed, and especially in the phrases 
kovojv -riv; aXqdria; and kovcov rFfc; rricrrcox^ 6 

These formulae belong in the context of the development of Church history 
in the 2nd century, which has often been placed under the catchword ‘birth of 
early Catholicism’. This description is not entirely false, but we must beware of 
unduly stereotyped ideas. It is correct that in this period the manifold variety of 
Christian doctrine and expressions of the faith begins to become unified. The 
struggle against Gnosticism and the syncretistic dissolution of the Christian 
message which it entailed made it necessary to seek for uniform norms for life and 
doctrine and for the constitution of the Church, and so secure the unity of the 
ecclesia catholica and the purity of its proclamation. 

The word kovuiv presented itself as a designation that could express 
unmistakably what ecclesiastically was now obligatory. It served in the first place 
quite generally to set in relief what the binding ecclesiastical norm was to be. and 
was used in this sense above all in a threefold connection: Rule of Truth 
(kovojv Trj<; <iAqd€ia<^, Rule of Faith (kovojv motcoiq) and Rule of the 
Church (or Ecclesiastical Rule, kovojv xfjq EKKA-qoiaO- The Rule of Truth is 
the obligatory truth as the Church proclaims it. It takes shape in the Rule of Faith, 
the regula fidei. However, in this idea of a kovojv jricrreux; or regula fidei 
we ought not to think prematurely of fixed and unalterable formulae of belief, a 
baptismal confession or the like. ‘Rule of Faith’ in the texts of the 2nd and 3rd 
centuries rather means ‘a definite objective summary of Christian doctrinal truth 
and in this sense of the faith’. 7 It should further be noted that in the course of time 
Kavov\^d|itvo<; and ciocXncna^ovurvcx; become synonymous designations, and 
that thus the Church was regarded as the creator of the norm. From the 4th century 
on the general use of the word ‘canon’ was supplemented or delimited: certain 
parts were extracted from the total teaching of the Church and the total content 
of its life, and then designated as kovwv or kovoviko ^ 1 But above all from the 
middle of the 4th century the collection of the recognised writings of the Old and 
New Testaments was so described ( see above. Canons of Laodicea and 
Athanasius). 

How did it come about that a term already long used in the Church was 
transferred to the collection of the recognised writings? 

As already mentioned, we cannot assume a taking over of the description from 
the lists of the Alexandrian grammarians, for these were called lavara; and not 



New Testament Apocrypha 


icavdve^. Now there is a use of icavcav the origin of which is not clear and which 
also is not so frequently attested: ‘canon’ as a list, catalogue or table. This 
description occurs in the pre-Christian and non-Christian area for astronomical 
(astrological) and chronological tables. Eusebius of Caesarea describes his tables 
for the Synoptics in this way (Nestle-Aland 26 , pp.73ff.). 

Zahn maintained (and Vielhauer agreed with him) that from the derivative 
verb tcovovx^eiv we must conclude that the transference of kovojv to the 
collection of writings recognised by the Church was determined by die meaning 
‘catalogue’. 9 

On the other hand Beyer, like Jiilicher before him, held to the view that the idea 
of a norm was decisive for this description of the Holy Scriptures. With this I 
concurred in NTApo 10 . 

Now we have no evidence as to why in the 4th century the Bible was described 
as canon. It is however very improbable that a purely formal concept 
(‘catalogue’) was attached to the collection, about the final consolidation of 
which people were concerned, especially since the concept of ‘canon’ from the 
2nd century played a considerable role in the Church, but not as a statement 
of any formal function, rather as a designation for a comprehensive formula 
for what in that period was vital to the life of the Church: a norm of doctrine and 
of faith. 

At any rate there is everything to be said for the view that the term canon 
as a designation for the Church's Bible was suggested by the history of its 
meaning within the Church (and its pre-Christian stages). ‘The canon is the 
norm to which everything in the Church accommodates itself; to canonise 
means to recognise as part of this norm.'" 

2. Another term appeared very much earlier than ‘canon’ as a description 
of the books recognised by the Church: Aiadniay This word, which occurs 
frequently in the NT, originally described a testament, but can also be understood 
as a disposition, enactment or declaration of will (so in LXX).‘Aiadr|KTi is from 
first to last the ‘disposition’ of God, the mighty declaration of the sovereign will 
of God in history, by which he orders the relation between himself and men 
according to his own saving purpose, and which carries with it the authoritative 
divine ordering, the one order of things which is in accordance with it’. 12 

The literary use of this term, which sounds for the first time in Paul (2 Cor. 
3:14: the reading of the Old Testament), made its way only gradually, in parallel 
with the consolidation of the collection of the NT writings. We can, however, no 
longer say when and where this usage came into full effect. Irenaeus, who 
knows as a theological term, did not apply the word to the Bible. 

On the other hand Melito of Sardis, in a letter preserved by Eusebius (H.E. IV 
26.13f.), reports on a journey to Palestine on which he obtained information 
about ta xfjq itaXaicu; 8iadT))CT|<; fkfftux. The result he sets out in a list of the 
OT books. The term 6iadr(rr| as a description for books is thus attested at least 
for the OT. Whether Melito also spoke of books of the ‘New Covenant’, we do 
not know. In Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 15; V 85) and Origen (Comm. inJoh. 
X 28; de Princ. IV 11) the usage appears to be already quite familiar, even though 
Origen notes a certain inaccuracy in the Church use of a biblical concept. 13 Canon 
LIX of Laodicea, already mentioned, shows that this use of an important 



New Testament Apocrypha 


theological term as the formal designation of the two parts of the Bible is firmly 
established. 

From Siadriioi the adjective ev5iadt|ico<; was derived (e.g. Origen, Or. 14.4; 
Euseb. H.E. Ill 3.1 etc.), which indicated belonging to the canon. Whether we can 
explain from this the usage of evStafrrvKx; for the same situation, which occurs 
in the 4th century (e.g. Epiphanius, Haer. 5S.2), remains questionable. 

Even if the transition from the meaning ‘covenant, testament’ to that of 
‘documents of the covenant' can no longer be explained in detail, we can yet 
establish that even with the technical use of the term it always remained 
possible in the Greek area ‘to discern the connection between the two and make 
it directly understood theologically’. 14 The Latin translation of 6iafrriicn had 
far-reaching consequences in so far as testamentum, by which the Greek word 
was rendered, has persisted as a designation even to today. In Tertullian 
instrumentum also occasionally occurs alongside testamentum, but instrumen- 
tum (probably taken over from ‘earlier Jewish terminology for the Old 
Testament’ 15 ) was supplanted by testamentum. 

The description of the two ‘Testaments’ by 8iadqioi thus probably came into 
use in the period when the NT canon was in formation and there was concern for 
the consolidation of the OT writings. As already stated, people in this period still 
did not speak of the canon when they meant the Bible, but they had to take thought 
for a designation. Aiadqioi or testamentum met the most important requirements: 
‘each part of the Scripture has acquired a new name which simultaneously unites 
the two and distinguishes between them. It is no longer possible to divorce the 
New Testament from the Old, as Marc ion had Died to do; but it is even less 
possible simply to put the two collections on the same level, as if there were no 
difference beween them. At least, this is the consequence which is bound to 
follow constantly from the predicates ‘Old’ and ‘New’, so long as these are not 
completely ignored.’ 16 

Behind the name for the documents of the divine will to salvation stands the 
theology of Irenaeus and his forefathers in Asia Minor, ‘who in their turn drew 
upon the ancient prophets and Paul’. 17 In other words, the history of the term 
5iadqicr| is only correctly understood when it is set in the context of the history 
of theology. 

3. Writings which were not accepted into the canon of the Old or New 
Testament, and thus do not rank as ‘canonical’, but are in some way or other 
connected with Old cm- New Testament writings, are commonly described as 
Apocrypha. This usage is relatively late. The old canon catalogues 1 * know the 
writings with which we are concerned for the most part only as ‘extra-canonical’, 
‘disputed’, ‘writings which are not read in the Church, but before catechumens'. 
However, the description of such writings as ‘apocrypha’ also appears (cf. the 
canon catalogues printed below), and here the uncertainty in usage becomes clear 
from the fact that alongside what we describe as apocrypha other writings (e.g. 
the Letters of Barnabas and Ignatius, etc.) are placed under the same head. For the 
usage familiar to us today, the use of the term by Karlstadt in his work De 
canonicis scripturis (1520) was important; 19 it was probably from there that it 
came into the Luther Bible (as a description for the disputed Old Testament 
books). 



New Testament Apocrypha 


In the early Church the designation <$uu$Kpv$a appears from the time of 
Irenaeus onwards, but has a different meaning and also in the early centuries had 
a history which is far from easy to survey. 

What did aj«5iqpv$o<; originally mean? 20 It has been thought that aridicpu^oq 
was a translation of the Hebrew nil. therefore of an expression by which were 
designated the books which were banned from reading in public worship, 
although their secular use was not thereby ruled out. That could be brought into 
accord with certain statements of the rabbis regarding such writings. But this 
opinion, advocated above all by Th. Zahn, 21 cannot be maintained. It must rather 
be emphasised that T31 in its basic significance means 'to gather' or 'to preserve’ 
and only in a derived sense ‘to hide, withdraw from the clutches of publicity’, 
whereas artoicpo^oq means in the first place ‘ kept hidden because of its costliness 
or because of the objectionable nature of its content’ and then ‘of hidden origin’. 
In any case the use of anoicpu^cx; for certain writings cannot be explained from 
Judaism; rather we must turn to the gentile-gnostic terminology for the root of 
this usage. Gnosticism favoured esoteric and secret doctrines, used cryptograms, 
and kept its writings secret. Thus the great Leiden magical papyrus prefaces the 
revelation of the Uph6r-charm with the instruction: e*e fa aaoicpu^ ax; 
pryaXopwnipiov. Kpufle, icpu{k (Preisendanz, Pap. gr. mag. XII 321), and 
similar instructions are a constant element in gnostic gospels (cf. below, pp.372ff.). 
In this context belongs also the concern to trace back Greek philosophy to oriental 
secret books which were described as axotcpo^a Pi^Xia (Suda IV 713.16 Adler). 
This terminology was decisive for the introduction of the notion ‘apocryphal’ 
into the Church. This is already shown by the fact that the word ‘apocryphal’ first 
comes before us not in connection with the history of the canon, but in the 
Church’s conflict with Gnosticism and other heresies. Thus according to 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.69.6) certain gnostics appealed to PtfJXm 
anOKp\x>ov, and a famous gnostic work bears the title ‘Apocryphon Johannis’. 
Now these were certainly not books that had been removed from a Jewish or 
Christian lectionary, but secret books that were peculiarly precious to the 
gnostics. 22 The ecclesiastical writers took over this use of the word, but since they 
rejected the occult sciences of the gnostics they gave to it a pejorative connota¬ 
tion. Thus Irenaeus sets cuioKpu^oq alongside vodoq (forged), and Tertullian uses 
apocrypha and falsa as synonymous. 23 Writings used by the Church - whether 
books read in public or books for private reading - are at any rate fundamentally 
not ‘apocryphal’. For a time, admittedly, another usage became current, when 
over against the gnostic ‘apocrypha’ the Church set as early secret books those 
Jewish books which the synagogue had rejected, but which enjoyed in it an 
extensive popularity. It is in this sense at all events that Origen speaks of such 
works as ‘apocrypha’. 24 As the valuation of these Old Testament ‘apocrypha’ 
declined, the expression also fell into disrepute. About 400 the depreciatory 
meaning of the word anoKpu^oq, applied now to the Jewish apocrypha as well, 
finally prevailed, as is clear from the following quotation from Augustine: de his 
qui appellantur apocryphi - non quod habendi sint in aliqua auctoritate secreta, 
sed quia nulla testificationis luce declarati de nescio quo secreto nescio quorum 
praesumptione prolati sunt (c. Faust. 11.2: CSEL 25, 314.25-315.3). 


1 4 



New Testament Apocrypha 


The withdrawal of the abundant apocryphal literature from ecclesiastical use 
set the term ‘apocryphal’ free for the writings which were not withdrawn, but 
were included only in the Septuagint. This use of the word, however, prevailed 
only in Protestantism. In the later canon catalogues these texts (in themselves 
permitted, but not set on an equality with the canonical writings) are still 
differentiated from those that were rejected. And in the catalogues only the latter 
are called dcaoicpu$oi or also vodoi tern axo(lXr|Tm, libri apocryphi. qui nullatenus 
a nobis recipi debeant (Deer. Gelasianum). At the same time the selection is still 
somewhat fluctuating. The Jewish pseudepigrapha and the gospels and Acts of 
Apostles that did not attain to the canon are certainly rejected. But when 
1 Clement, the so-called 2 Clement, the Didache, the writings of Ignatius and the 
Shepherd of Hennas are also designated dftOKpu$oi, the usage is inexact, and the 
notion of dbtoicpo$o<; is blended with that of the dvuXfrjdpcva; these writings do 
not belong to the canon, but the reading of them is permitted. 

2. On the history of the New Testament canon 

Literature: Th. Zahn, Geschichte des mi. Kano ns I II, 1888-92; id.. Grundrifi der 
Geschichte des nil. Kanons. 2 1904; H. Lietzmann. Wie wurden die Bucher des NT heilige 
Schrift? 5 Vortrdge. 1907 (= Kleine Schriften II, TU 68, 1958, 15-98; quotations from 
the 1907 edition); A. von Haraack, The Origins of the New Testament, 1925; H. von 
Campenhausen. The Formation of the Christian Bible, ET 1972; W. Schneemelcher, Art. 
Bibel III. ‘Die Entstehung des Kanons des NT und der chnsibchen Bibel', in TRE VI, 1980, 
22-48 (Lit.); William R. Farmer and Denis M. Farkasfalvy.O.Cist. The Formation of the 
New Testament Canon. An Ecumenical Approach. New York 1983. There is also a short 
sketch of the history of the canon in many introductions to the NT. e.g. A. Jiilicher 
- E. Fascher. Einleitung in das NT, 7 1931, pp. 450-558; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der 
urchristlichen Literatur, 1975, pp. 774-786; W.G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the NT, ET 
1966, pp. 334-358 (20th German edition 1980, pp. 420-451 [Lit.]). 

1. The ‘New Testament Apocrypha’ assembled in this book are not a unity which 
one may simply set over against the canon of the New Testament. They also 
never formed a self-contained corpus. 1 Rather, very diverse early Christian 
writings are here presented, chosen according to specific criteria, which all in 
some way show some relation to the content or the forms of the NT writings. This 
relation must be separately determined for each individual text, and here 
naturally the time of origin merits special attention (before the composition of a 
particular NT writing, before or after the completion of the canon), even though 
for many apocrypha the date of origin can be stated only approximately. 

The question whether, despite the considerable differences between the texts 
assembled in this work, an appropriate definition of the concept ‘New Testament 
apocrypha' can be formulated, covering all aspects, has still to be examined 
(see below, pp.50ff.). Here in the first place it should simply be established that 
all these writings have some relation to the writings united in the canon, and that 
therefore for the understanding of this complex material attention must be paid 
not only to the origin of the different Gattungen of NT writings (Gospels, Letters, 
Acts, Apocalypses) but also to the formation of a binding collection of writings 
recognised by the Church. 2 


5 



New Testament Apocrypha 


Despite many labours in its investigation, the history of the canon remains as 
ever ‘one of the most complicated parts of the study of Church History’ 
(Lietzmann, p. 3). To be sure, a certain consensus has taken shape in regard to 
many questions of detail. But precisely the most important problems are still 
controversial: When and how did a New Testament come to be a recognised 
authority alongside the writings of the OT? What theological driving forces were 
operative in the process? How are we to assess the position of Mardon in the 
history of the canon? These uncertainties naturally hang together with the 
question of sources. Above all for the beginnings in the 2nd century we are often 
reduced to hypotheses and conjectures, which ought not to be put forward as solid 
facts, as often happens. 3 

For a proper grasp of the process of the formation of the canon, some points 
are of fundamental importance: 

a) The brief survey of the concept ‘canon’ (see above) has shown that this 
designation for the collection of the books recognised in the Church only came 
into use at a late date. The history of the canon thus cannot start out from this 
concept, but must take account of the fact that it is a question of the complicated 
history of the fixation and assembling together of many older and by no means 
uniform traditions, the result of which was then - very late - described by the word 
‘canon’. 

b) Primitive Christianity had a holy ‘scripture’, the Old Testament. It must, 
however, be observed that in the period in which the infant Christianity made 

use of it the range of the OT was not yet finally settled. 4 The putting into literary 
form of the Jesus traditions (Gospels) and the collection of apostolic writings 
signifies that a new ‘scripture’ took its place beside the old. Since the oral 
tradition was still very much alive alongside that fixed in writing - as becomes 
clear from the early ‘apocrypha’ - the problem of how ‘scripture’ and ‘tradition’ 
are related to one another was from the beginning an aspect of the process 
of the formation of the canon (cf., e.g., Papias). 

c) The history of the NT canon cannot be mastered by establishing when, 
where and how a document which later belongs to the canon is quoted. Naturally 
investigations of this kind are necessary, and useful for the early history. But use 
of a document, or a special value given to it, does not yet mean canonisation. Even 
a possible demonstration of its use in public worship does not say much for the 
beginnings of the canon. 

d) The history of the NT canon is a part of Church history and the history 
of theology, and can only be correctly evaluated when it is set in the total 
context of the development of the Church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Here 
it is scarcely enough to proclaim the canon alongside Church office and the 
regula fidei as the decisive ‘norms’ of the early Catholic Church. The historical 
processes in their complexity elude any stereotyped characterisation. The rise 
of the canon - like the formation of the regula fidei - was largely determined 
by the concern to separate off the ‘genuine’ tradition from false traditions. 

2. The process of the formation of the canon is on the one hand determined by 
the collection, sifting and delimitation of the Jesus tradition and the apostolic 
tradition, but on the other hand it is also a part of the struggle regarding the 


1 6 



New Testament Apocrypha 


authoritative norm for the Church’s faith and proclamation. This concern about 
a norm for Christian existence can already be identified in the earliest Christian¬ 
ity. We may therefore probably say that the roots of the canon as a collection of 
normative documents reach back into the 1 st century, although naturally we must 
pay due heed to the history of the concept presented above, and may not combine 
any anachronistic ideas with the statement. 

Primitive Christianity took over ‘the scriptures’ (Mk. 12:24) as normative, 
evidently without reflecting on their number (which in Judaism also was in this 
period not yet firmly fixed). Only in the second half of the 2nd century did 
people concern themselves with the question of what writings belonged to the 
canon of the OT (Melito of Sardis in Euseb. H.E. IV 26.13f.). When Melito there 
speaks of EtcXoyoti (extracts), this might refer to a testimony-collection or florile- 
gium. This would mean that in early Christianity (down to Melito) people did 
indeed recognise ‘the scriptures' as normative, but that they did not regard the 
whole OT (as a book) as important, but selected what corresponded with the 
norm, which was the Lord. For it may be concluded from all the witnesses of the 
early Christian period that the Lord and not any writing was the supreme norm. 

With the collection of sayings and speeches of Jesus (the document Q) and the 
rise of Gospels the way was opened up for putting the Jesus tradition into literary 
form. Here it is not a question of the authority of a document. Rather the Lord 
remains the authority working through and in the Spirit, which takes priority over 
all other norms (cf. 2 Cor. 3: 14ff ). Thus even the Gospels were not written as 
‘canonical’ books, which were intended to be a norm as a ‘new scripture’ or to 
claim authority (otherwise Luke and Matthew could not have expanded and 
recast Mark). Rather it is a question of an interpretative summary of the Jesus 
tradition, to safeguard it and to hand it on in the proclamation of the message of 
salvation. But this guaranteed for the following generation also that the Lord and 
not a new ‘scripture’ remained the norm and the authority within the community. 
However, it should not be overlooked that the handing on of the tradition to the 
next generations, which had to be done in writing if people were not to become 
petrified in esoteric secret circles, contained in itself the impulse for the process 
of the formation of a canon. 

It is not surprising that special attention and respect was accorded to the 
original messengers of the Gospel. Some of them had known the earthly Jesus 
and they had jointly determined the path of the message of salvation in the 
world, and their authority was conceded. This authority, however, was not 
dependent on their writings, since it was not the dominant personality that was 
the decisive factor. Rather it was the primitive Christian conviction that the 
Holy Spirit worked through these first witnesses, and their testimony might 
therefore claim authority. Above all, the authority of the Lord was not thereby 
called in question. 

With the collection of the Pauline letters, their reading in public worship (Col. 
4:16) and their subsequent imitation (Deutero-Paulines) the process of putting 
the apostolic preaching also into literary form began, and this was then further 
advanced through a theological interpretation of the apostolic office (Luke; 1 
Clement). 



New Testament Apocrypha 


In sum we may say that the norm in primitive Christianity is the Lord alone, 
and that in the sense that he is ‘a living authority which becomes actual in 
preaching' (KUmmel, p. 336). Alongside him the early witnesses of the Gospel 
(the apostles) are accorded a derivative authority. ‘Scripture’ also, i.e. the OT, 
is subordinated to the Lord. In the course of the 1st century we then find the 
fixation in writing of the Jesus tradition and the collection of apostolic 
testimonies, so that ‘a new, living norm was developing in the Church, a norm 
which from the first included the Lord and the apostles who witnessed to the 
message from the Lord’ (KUmmel, p. 336). This is naturally not yet a canon of 
the NT; but the way to it is prepared for in the 1st century. 

3. Even if no final conclusion of the canon was yet attained in the 2nd 
century, considerable significance still attaches to this period. For, on the one 
hand, in these decades the process of the consolidation of the Jesus tradition 
was completed by the formation of the Four-Gospel canon (and connected with 
it: the exclusion of the apocryphal gospels), as was the process of the fixation 
of the ‘apostolic tradition’ through the formation of the ‘ Apostolos’. On the other 
hand there was also recognition in the last decades of the 2nd century of the 
problem posed by the collections of the Old and New Testament writings, which 
differed in compass and content; that is, reflection about problems of canon now 
begins. 

A survey of the sources clearly shows that we can treat the development 
down to the Apologist Justin (middle of 2nd century) only as pre-history. For 
the result of such a survey is that before Justin we cannot speak of ‘canonical’ 
status for individual books of the NT. Certainly there is evidence for knowledge 
of, and even citations from, individual books of the later NT. But these facts 
simply show that the process of the putting into literary form and fixation of 
the Jesus tradition and of the ‘apostolic teaching', begun in the 1st century, 
has continued. 

The question of the existence of the NT canon before the middle of the 2nd 
century was in their day discussed with astonishing vehemence between Zahn 
and Hamack. The positions of that time are on particular points still influential 
even today. Zahn wanted to place the origin of the NT very early. He thought that 
‘some considerable time before 140, in the whole sphere of the Catholic Church, 
the collection of the four Gospels and that of the 13 Pauline epistles were already 
read alongside the scriptures of the OT, and that several other writings, such as 
Revelation, Acts and in some parts of the Church probably also Hebrews, 1 Peter, 
James and the letters of John, and perhaps even the Didache, were held worthy 
of the same honour’ ( Grundrifi , p. 35). (It should be noted that for Zahn reading 
in public worship is tantamount to ‘canonical’). 

Against this Hamack affirmed that the formation of the canon - like the 
origin of church office and the regula fidei - belongs in the context of the rise 
of the ‘early Catholic’ Church. For Hamack it is accordingly clear that about 
150 there was still no NT. The NT canon rather first came into being in the 
second half of the 2nd century, and that through the elimination of books which 
did not agree with the early Catholic doctrine. The collection and canonising of 
Christian writings, resting upon a process of elimination, was so to speak an 

1 8 



New Testament Apocrypha 


involuntary undertaking by the Church in the conflict with Marcion and the 
Gnostics.’’ 

The researches of recent decades have made it clear that the development 
of Church and theology in the 2nd century took a much more complex course 
than Haraack and Zahn thought Above all, the schematic categories of the 19th 
century are scarcely adequate for the understanding of this period, 6 

Nevertheless the discussion between Zahn and Hamack is instructive even 
today. On the one hand, the two scholars presented an abundance of material 
and pointed out many important aspects, so that - as the literature shows • 
we must again and again reach back to their works. On the other, this 
controversy makes it clear that we can scarcely do justice to the process of 
the formation of the canon on the basis of preconceived categories. 

Here it must be specially emphasised that in the investigation of the history 
of the New Testament canon we must not overlook the connection between the 
rise of the NT and the canonising of the OT. The origins of the two-part Christian 
Bible and the formation of a New Testament canon hang closely together. At any 
rate the 'crisis of the OT canon’ (von Campenhausen, Formation, pp. 62ff.) must 
be kept in view if we arc to answer the central question of the history of the canon: ‘How 
did it happen, or what happened, that out of the abundance of the early Christian 
literature a number of particular writings was selected, elevated in rank above the 
rest, and set beside the received ‘scripture’ of the OT as on the same level?' 
(Vielhauer, Lit. gesch., pp. 780ff). 

In the first half of the 2nd century there was still no NT as a canonical 
collection. The sources of this period can only be examined in regard to the 
question whether and how they cite writings which later belong to the canon, 
whether the quotations are adduced as ypa$q (scripture), and what indications for 
the further development follow from the results of our inquiry. This investigation 
of the literature of the period from the point of view of the questions mentioned 
has often been undertaken, and very thoroughly, but with very divergent results. 7 
This, however, cannot be discussed here in detail. It must suffice to sketch the 
most important points in summary fashion. Here it will be appropriate to separate 
the question of the position of the Gospels from that of the value set on the 
‘Apostolos’. Since the role of Gnosticism, of Marcion and of Montanism in the 
formation of the canon is still debated, some brief consideration must also be 
given to these questions. 

a) Gospels: In some of the writings from the first half of the 2nd century included 
under the misleading name of ‘Apostolic Fathers' there are quotations which 
belong in the context of the Jesus tradition (oral or written), but whose derivation 
from a Gospel is improbable (e.g. 1 Clem. 13.1-4; 46.7-8; Bam. 4.14; 5.9). In 
others, knowledge of one of the four Gospels is a natural assumption, even if we 
cannot prove literal quotation (e.g. Ign. Philad. 5.1, 2; 8.9; 9.2; Sm. 5.1; 7.2). 
More important than this conclusion, based on a scrupulous examination of the 
material, is the fact that there is no trace of any canonical significance for the 
Gospels alongside the OT. Only in so-called 2 Clement (middle of the 2nd 
century) can we identify the first indications that the authority of the Lord and of 
his words is being transferred to writings in which these words are contained 
( 2 Clem. 2.4; 5.2; 8.5 etc).* 


1 9 



New Testament Apocrypha 


Of interest is the venture of bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who (probably 
between 120 and 140) composed five books of an ‘interpretation of the Lord's 
words' (XoyuDv icupianctov E^Tiynoeak; mrflfpdppata heVce), of which however 
only fragments have surv ived.* From the remains which have come down to us, 
it is clear that Papias did not write a commentary on a Gospel, but collected and 
expounded reports of diverse origin about the words and deeds of Jesus. Papias 
did know Gospels (at least Mark and Matthew), but he nevertheless undertook to 
attempt a new compilation of the Jesus tradition, keeping to the oral tradition 
which he had learned from the ‘elders' and preserved. ‘That which comes from 
books seems to me not to be of such service as that which begins as living speech 
and remains so’ (in Eus. H.E. Ill 39.4; translation from H. von Campenhausen, 
Formation, p. 130). This means, however, that Papias does not accord any 
authoritative status to the four Gospels (or even fewer), but adheres to the free 
oral tradition. 10 The position of the Gospels as ‘scripture’ was thus at this period 
still very uncertain (which says nothing as to their diffusion, the value placed 
upon them, or their use in public worship; here we are concerned only with the 
process of the formation of the canon). 

The apologist Justin, who can well be adduced as a witness for the situation 
in Rome in the middle of the 2nd century, not only knows several Gospels but 
attests their use in public worship (Apol. I 65ff.). He speaks of the 
ojiopvnpoveupaTa , the memoirs, 11 which were composed by the apostles and 
those who followed them (Dial. 103.8). Examination of the quotations and allu 
sions shows that Justin probably knew all three Synoptics, and that as writings 
which were read in public worship as of equal value beside the OT. His 
knowledge of the Gospel of John is disputed. 12 

Justin is so important for the history of the canon, because on the one hand, 
like the w itnesses before him, he still shows a certain freedom over against the 
text of the Gospels (harmonisation; use of texts outside the Gospels). But on the 
other hand there appears in Justin the development to a fixed position for the 
Gospels (three or four) as normative writings, of equal value with the OT. It 
seems to be equally clear from Justin that these writings received their standing 
in the Church above all from the tradition of the words of the Lord. The way 
forward to the canon is also heralded in Justin’s statement that this Jesus tradition 
was recorded by apostles and disciples of apostles. 

This is not the place to enter further into details. A few summary notes must 
suffice; 

The extant sources from the first half of the 2nd century attest in very 
diverse ways acquaintance with individual Gospels. In addition it can be 
established that people also used traditions which are indeed in some way 
connected with the synoptic tradition, but did not in this form find entry into 
the first three Gospels. Similar observations can also be made with regard to 
the earliest apocryphal gospels (e.g. P.Egerton 2, see below, pp.96ff.). 

So far as Gospels arc known and used, that of Matthew appears to have 
enjoyed especial popularity, while there is hardly any evidence for the Gospel of 
John, although it was yet used in particular areas (cf. P 5 *' from the first quarter of 
the 2nd century). Most communities in that period will in any case have had only 


20 



New Testament Apocrypha 


one Gospel. The Gospels are largely used as sources for the tradition of the words 
of the Lord, but not as ‘holy scripture' like the OT. This is just as clear from the 
free method of citation as from the presumable existence of logia collections, 
testimony books and similar epitomes. All this, however, shows that it is a 
question here of a usage detennined by the authority of the Lord as the norm of 
Christian faith and utterance. In other words, 'Gospel' is still to a large extent not 
a literary concept, but describes the content of the proclamation. 13 Only so indeed 
is Papias’ undertaking comprehensible. 

In this period, however, we can also identify the first signs of a consolidation, 
which means a putting into literary form. The authority of the Lord passes over 
to the writings in which the words of the Lord are handed down (Justin). The 
reasons for this change are certainly very complex: we must pay attention just 
as much to the growing awareness of the increasing distance in time as to the 
growth of gnostic traditions and their fixation in writing (Gospel of the 
Egyptians, Gospel of Thomas, etc. On these gospels see below, pp. 110ff.; 
209ff.;354ff.). 

b) Apostolic writings:In this pan of the later NT canon also we cannot for the 
first half of the 2nd century start out from any ‘canonical’ validity, but may 
simply ask whether quotations can be identified, or evidence of knowledge. This 
will not be undertaken here in detail, but a few indications will reveal the 
problem. Knowledge of Acts cannot be affirmed before Justin, and even for him 
it scarcely has a normative character (cf. Apol. I 39.3; 41.5 etc.). 14 The 
Apocalypse of John is likewise largely unknown before Justin (Dial. 81.4). 
Knowledge and use of the Letter of James cannot be demonstrated in the 2nd 
century. For the rest of the so-called Catholic epistles also the results are very 
meagre. On the other hand the Letter to the Hebrews appears to have been known 
in Rome at the end of the 1st century (1 Clem. 17.1; 36.2-5). 

The case of the Pauline epistles is somewhat different - and more difficult. For 
in the texts of this period there are many indications of a knowledge of Paul’s 
letters (cf. 1 Clem. 47.1-3; 49.5 etc.; Ignatius, see below; Polycarp 11.2). It is 
striking that Papias - so far as we can see - does not mention Paul. But even in 
Justin Paul ‘does not get a word in’. 15 Naturally Justin knew something of Paul, 
and also probably knew some letters. For we must probably reckon with a 
collection of Paul’s letters about A.D. 100, even if we cannot reach any clarity 
with regard to its extent, the sequence of the letters, its place of origin and other 
details. Possibly Justin renounced any use of Paul because he had been 
completely taken over by Marcion and the gnostics. 16 

At all events the fact remains that only very few witnesses can be brought 
forward for the knowledge and use of the ‘apostolic’ part of the later NT in the 
first half of the 2nd century. These texts did not have any normative 
significance in this period. On the other hand the ‘apostolic’ authority is so 
strongly emphasised in various texts that even the controversial Paul must profit 
thereby. When Ignatius speaks of the SoTpaxa too Kupiou icai xtov outornoktov 
(Magn. 13.1), he means the living tradition of instruction by the Lord and his 
apostles. Since, however, on the other hand he refers directly to Paul’s letters 
(Eph. 12.2), the basis is provided for the later fixing of the apostolic instruction 



New Testament Apocrypha 


in written documents of the ‘apostles’. Finally we may refer once again to the 
collection of the Pauline letters. 17 Even if we cannot say anything as to the manner 
of its origin, and also there can be no talk of any ‘canonical’ validity of the 
collection in this period, yet it may probably be presumed that it contributed to 
the consolidation of the ‘apostolic tradition’, in that it attracted to itself other 
‘apostolic’ texts. 

c) The significance of Gnosticism, Marcion and Montanism for the history 
of the canon: So far we have spoken only of those witnesses for the history of 
the NT canon which can be claimed as belonging to the Church. Beside these in 
the 2nd century there are phenomena which in their time or in a later phase were 
designated ‘heretical’, even though they themselves understood themselves as 
Christians and the boundaries between ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ were still very 
fluid in the 2nd century." The written word, i.e. what later became canonical, 
soon played a certain role in the discussions with these phenomena. 

The importance of Gnosticism for the rise of the NT canon and of the Christian 
Bible is certainly not to be overlooked. In particular it is probably the case that 
the debate with Gnosticism compelled the Church to reflect upon the ‘true’ and 
‘genuine’ tradition. This does not mean that the process of the formation of the 
canon is to be understood merely as a defence against the gnostic threat But in 
this conflict the Church recognised the safeguarding of the tradition as a problem. 

Here we must refer once again to the connection between the acceptance of die 
OT and the formation of the NT canon. The various attempts to deal with the 
problem of the OT (e g. the Letter of Barnabas) show that in the 2nd century 
people in the Church were no longer so unbiassed towards these writings as in the 
1st century. The gnostics did not conjure up ‘the crisis of the Old Testament 
Canon in the 2nd century’ (von Campenhausen, Formation, pp. 62ff.), but they 
made people aware of it and sharpened it. They also represented very varied 
positions in this matter, but probably all of them - so far as we can establish - 
accorded a certain authority to the OT. Certainly they departed from the Church 
in their exposition, in that they drew in pagan literature also and their own 
revelation documents, and so relativised the authority of ‘scripture’. Again, the 
‘dismembering of the sacred text among a number of different beings who were 
held to have inspired it or acted as mediators of revelation’ (von Campenhausen, 
p. 87) scarcely strengthened the position of the OT in these circles. 

The gnostics also, like the theologians of the Church, measured the OT in 
various ways by the standard of the words of Christ - whatever was understood 
by that. 1 * Since in the period in which a ‘Christian Gnosticism’ was in formation 
there were still no ‘canonical’ Gospels (in the later sense of normative writings), 
the older gnostics were not bound to any text of the kind. New works were 
produced which professed to present old revelations and traditions. The gnostic 
‘gospels’ and related works presented in this volume give an impression of the 
abundance of this production, which is governed above all by the concern to 
impart true and genuine teachings of the Revealer. 

This literature probably did not arise so much in opposition to the Gospels of 
the Church, so far as they were known, as rather in analogy to the free handling 
of the Jesus tradition which in the first half of the 2nd century was still usual in 


22 



New Testament Apocrypha 


the Church as well. We cannot say with certainty whether the reports of the 
creation of their own gospels by Basilides and Valentinus are accurate (cf. von 
Campenhausen, Formation, pp. 139ff). The Coptic Gospel of Thomas (see 
below, pp.l lOff) shows how in gnostic circles old Jesus traditions were handed 
on, but at the same time transmuted and expanded. In other circles people were 
even more free in the modification of the tradition and in the invention of new 
‘traditions’. It is striking how many names from older tradition were used by 
people wishing to propagate their own ideas as ‘genuine’, ‘old’ and reliable 
statements of revelation. 

These brief remarks are simply intended to indicate that in the 2nd century 
the process of the consolidation in writing and delimitation of the Jesus 
tradition and the apostolic tradition had its counterpart in the gnostic area in the 
rise of texts of their own. How far this was in conscious opposition or uncon¬ 
scious analogy to writings of the Church has to be established in the case of each 
individual text, and this is certainly not a simple task. 

We cannot deny a certain influence on the formation of the canon to the debate 
between the Church and Gnosticism with its literary products, even if this 
confrontation was not the decisive factor. At any rate we cannot overlook the fact 
that a gnostic NT could be put together from the Christian gnostic texts from Nag 
Hammadi. 20 Here we find Gospels (some writings describe themselves as 
gospels: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, etc.), 
Acts (of Peter), Epistles and Apocalypses (of James, Paul and Peter). 21 

There was, as is well known, no gnostic NT. But the fact that the material for 
one actually lay ready to hand is just as important for the problem of the formation 
of the canon as for the question of the origin of the apocryphal literature. 

The significance of Marcion for the history of the Christian Bible is still 
debated. 22 While some affirm that Marcion was ‘the creator of the Christian Holy 
Scripture’ (so Hamack and von Campenhausen), others emphasise that 
Marcion's canon only expedited but did not occasion the formation of a canon 
by the Church (so KUmmeD. 23 The state of our sources scarcely allows of any 
stringent proof for either of the two positions. Yet there is much to be said 
against any overemphasis on the ‘great personality’ Marcion. On the other hand 
there is no question that Marcion's attempt, after rejecting the OT. to create 
a New Testament for himself (consisting of an expurgated Luke and ten likewise 
expurgated Pauline letters) hastened the development of a Church canon. 

It should also be noted that Marcion was certainly not the creator of the 
Christian Bible, as Hamack thought, but at most of the New Testament. For the 
Church both before and after Marcion recognised the OT as a book of the Church. 
Marcion also was certainly not the first to collect the Pauline letters, but found 
them already together. His high regard for Paul, which however rested upon a 
magnificent misunderstanding, was imparted to him through this collection. The 
collection did not have any ‘canonical’ status, but its authoritative character is 
demonstrated precisely through Marcion’s theology. Marcion probably found no 
collection of the four Gospels in existence, but only individual Gospels. He 
employs the word ‘gospel’ as a literary designation, 24 i.e. the Jesus tradition set 
down in writing in a Gospel was known to him, and that as a norm. 


23 



New Testament Apocrypha 


It is striking that Marcion's New Testament was not treated as closed by his 
adherents (cf. the Epistle to the Laodiceans). 25 This too speaks against any undue 
emphasis on Marcion’s significance for the history of the canon. We may well ask 
whether what we today call Marcion’s NT did not form along with the Antitheses 
one great work, with which Marcion intended to operate in a Marc ionite sense, 
through the bringing together and interpretation of the genuine and unadulterated 
documents of the ‘Gospel’. But this question can scarcely be answered. 

The significance of Montanism for the history of the canon was in their day 
hotly debated between Zahn and Hamack, 24 but here also it has (Moved in the 
interval that the positions then adopted are in that form not tenable. 27 

In the first place it must be emphasised that for anyone concerned with this 
phenomenon Montanism presents many hitherto unresolved problems. Thus for 
example the chronology, which is important precisely for the position of 
Montanism in relation to the canon, is just as disputed as the interpretation 
of the various phases of the movement. We must here distinguish very carefully 
between hypotheses and demonstrable facts. 

It is only a conjecture, although there is much to be said for it, that the question 
of the canon played no very great role for the Montanists, whether it was that at 
the time of the rise of the ‘ Phrygian prophecy ’ the formation of the canon was not 
yet very far advanced, or that the Montanists simply accepted the development. 
Even in the later phase (Tertullian) there appear to have been no fundamental 
discussions on this point. On the other hand we can establish that in the debate 
between the Church and Montanism what was at stake was ’over and above the 
problem of the canon, the much more fundamental question of the function and 
significance of historical tradition, its completeness, and its relation to present 
revelation’ (Paulsen, p. 34). Thus Montanism also, like the Church, was affected 
by the problems of the consolidation of the normative tradition. 

We therefore cannot indeed say that Montanism was ‘the factor which brought 
about the concentration of the Canon’ (von Campenhausen, p. 221). But through 
it the questions of the normative character of the tradition, its exclusiveness and 
also its correct interpretation were brought nearer to a solution in the Church. 
Here the Johannine writings, and above all the Apocalypse, stood at the centre of 
the discussion. 

4. In the second half of the 2nd century, not only did the collection of writings 
develop into a firmly circumscribed New Testament, but also the two-part 
Christian Bible of the Old and New Testaments was formed. As already 
emphasised, this connection must be taken into account in a history of the New 
Testament canon. It is, moreover, not unimportant for the origin of ‘apocryphal’ 
literature also. Pan of this literature links up with Old Testament personages 
or events (cf. e.g. the Ascension of Isaiah; 5 and 6 Ezra). In the gnostic texts 
which can be reckoned among the apocrypha, Old Testament personages in 
pan also play a role. 

We cannot here take up a position in any detail with regard to the problem 
of the Old Testament in the Church of the 2nd century. A few remarks must 
suffice. 

The re-interpretation of the OT by the gnostics and its rejection by Marcion 


24 



New Testament Apocrypha 


made no difference to the attitude of the churches. In the scriptures of the Old 
Covenant people found Christ, and naturally also the command of God. The 
theologians certainly had to concern themselves with defending the OT against 
Marcion. Here Justin above all rendered great service. The question of the extent 
of the OT which the Church possessed cannot be answered quite unambigu¬ 
ously. 2 * There seem also to have been differences between the individual 
churches and the provinces. Melito of Sardis was the first to concern himself 
about an exact list (Euseb. H.E. IV 26.13f.). His enumeration corresponds to the 
Hebrew canon (without Esther). The question was then brought to a positive 
conclusion in the 4th century. Melito’s list shows that people in the Church were 
evidently concerned about agreement with the Hebrew canon. The influence of 
LXX was, however, also ever-present, and finally gained the upper hand. The 
learned discussion was considerably interested in the relation of the Hebrew 
text to LXX and to other translations. All these concerns about the OT are closely 
connected with the contemporary effort to establish the extent of the Jesus 
tradition and the apostolic preaching. 

The phase of the pre history of the NT canon came to an end in the middle of 
the 2nd century. The process of consolidation now began. Here the tendencies 
which make their appearance in the period before Justin emerge ever more 
clearly. Marcion’s attempt to achieve a normative Gospel and a binding collec¬ 
tion of the Pauline letters (both ‘expurgated’, i.c. falsified) strengthened the 
tendencies towards a firmly closed canon. 

As already mentioned, this becomes clear in Justin. For him (three or four) 
Gospels have the same rank as ‘scripture’ as the OT. As for the Pauline letters, 
such a valuation cannot yet be established (cf. above. p.20f). 

Tatian's Diatessaron. a ‘harmony’ from the four Gospels, shows that on the 
one hand these writings occupy an authoritative position, but on the other that 
their text is not inviolable and can be supplemented by extra-canonical 
material. This Diatessaron was recognised as holy scripture in Syria right down 
to the 5th century. That makes it clear that Tatian's undertaking was regarded 
as legitimate in the 2nd century. Paul’s letters were probably not regarded as 
‘scripture’ by Tatian.- N Theophilus of Antioch (second half of 2nd century ) 
knows Gospels and letters of Paul as authoritative scripture (Autol. II22; III 14). 10 

It is interesting that in the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, from 
the year 177, Rev. 22:11 is cited as ‘scripture’ (Euseb. H E. V 1.58). This shows 
that in the early period of Irenaeus in Gaul at least this NT book, if not also other 
parts of the ‘Apostolos’, was set on the same level as the OT. 

We have already spoken of Melito’s concern about the canon of the OT (see 
above, p. 12). There is much to be said for the view that the term ’Old Testament 
(Siadqicn )’ used by him implies that he also knew the term ‘New Testament’. 
But this cannot be proved. 

From these witnesses it can be seen how in this period there is a growing 
consciousness in the different areas that in the Church there are normative 
‘scriptures’ besides the OT. However, people are probably still not everywhere 
clear as to the exclusive character of the NT canon. Thus the martyrs of Scilli in 
North Africa in 188 do not seem to have set Paul’s letters on the same level as the 



New Testament Apocrypha 


Gospels (Passio 12: Kriiger-Ruhbach, p. 29.18f.). As a further example we may 
name bishop Serapion of Antioch, who about 200 at first permitted to the 
congregation of Rhossus the reading of the Gospel of Peter (see below, pp.216ff.), 
but later, after he had convinced himself of the heretical character of the work, 
prohibited its use (Euseb. H.E. VI 12.2ff.). Uncertainties and differences which 
still exist in this period can also be appraised as indications that the NT canon is 
not to be understood as a deliberate reaction against Marc ion and Gnosticism, but 
took shape in the various regions of the Church (at first in different ways) on the 
basis of old deposits. In addition it is clear from the conduct of Serapion that the 
process of the formation of the canon was not only one of the collection (or 
exclusion) of traditions and of their fixing in writing, but also belongs in the 
context of the formation of the Church’s doctrine. 51 This naturally was of 
considerable importance for the relation of the Church to the ‘apocrypha’. 

5. About the turn from the 2nd to the 3rd century we can see a certain 
stabilisation. Even if there are still local differences in the assessment of 
individual writings, and the limits of the canon are not yet firmly fixed, it is 
yet clear that the Church possesses a two-part Bible of the Old and New 
Testaments For the NT the content is widely acknowledged: the four Gospels 
belong to the writings recognised by the Church (the Gospel of John may here and 
there be still in dispute). The apostolic writings, of which Paul’s letters form the 
core, are still undecided in regard to their number and also their sequence, but are 
predominantly a recognised part of the canon. 

Irenaeus can already be adduced as a witness for this state of affairs. Rightly 
described as ‘the first catholic theologian, the first man to know and 
acknowledge a New Testament both in theory and in practice' (von Campenhausen, 
Formation, p. 203), he reckons to ‘scripture’ the four Gospels, Acts and thirteen 
letters of Paul. 1 Peter and the two Johannine letters (1 and 2) are appraised 
like the Pauline letters, while James and Hebrews are probably not so highly 
esteemed. The Apocalypse is known to Irenaeus, but is not particularly 
prominent. It is worthy of note that the Shepherd of Hermas is quoted as 
■scripture'. 32 

Even if the limits of the canon appear still fluid, yet the tendency towards 
a firm delimitation cannot be overlooked. This is connected with Irenaeus’ 
concern for a theological penetration of the problem of ‘scripture and 
tradition’. This cannot be set out here in detail. 33 We need only refer to the fact 
that Irenaeus is at pains to justify the ‘four-fold Gospel’ ( Haer . Ill 11.8), a 
problem which must have been of considerable significance for the question 
of the canon. 54 

In controversy with Marcion and the gnostics Irenaeus used a catholic New 
Testament alongside the OT for his scriptural proof - an indication of the state 
of the development of the canon. Here he uses the regula fidei as the standard 
for assessing the recognised writings, which is not surprising. Irenaeus is not 
only a witness to ‘the transition from the earlier period of belief in tradition to the 
new age of deliberate canonical standardisation’ (von Campenhausen, p. 182), 
but above all he inaugurated, and for a long time determined, the theological 
work on the problem of the canon. This holds also for the assessment of 


26 



New Testament Apocrypha 


‘apocryphal’ works (e.g. the Gospel of Truth, Haer. Ill 11.9). 

For Tertullian also the Bible as totum instrumentum utnusque testamenti 
(Prax. 20) is a fixed entity, even if the Apostolos is not yet defined with 
certainty.” 

The situation is similar with Clement of Alexandria. He does indeed use the 
Gospel of the Hebrews and that of the Egyptians, but normative authority is 
accorded only to 'the four Gospels handed down to us’ (Strom. ID 93.1). For 
Gement, Acts, the Apocalypse, fourteen Pauline letters (thus including 
Hebrews), 1 Peter and 1 John belong to the canon. On the question of the 
remaining catholic epistles his judgment vacillates. 

It must, however, be added that with these statements we have not yet 
grasped the core of Clement’s conception. His understanding of scripture, with 
which we shall not deal further here, is beyond doubt determined by other 
points of view than the statements of Irenaeus or Tertullian. One must concur 
with von Campenhausen: ‘It is ... no accident that he got no further than he 
did in developing and creating a rationale for the new Canon - he was unable to 
provide a theological solution to the problem of the normativeness of Scripture.’ 
Hence he remains ‘of no significance for the history of the concept of the Canon’ 
(Formation, p. 307). 

A particularly interesting document, and beyond doubt important for the 
history of the canon, is the so-called Canon Muratori. This is a fragmentary 
canon catalogue, handed down in a manuscript of the 8th century (for 
translation see below, pp.34ff ). Owing to its barbarous Latin the text, 
probably a translation of a Greek original, presents many difficulties for its 
understanding. 

It is generally assumed that this catalogue originated about the year 200 
in the West, probably in Rome. 54 Against the prevailing opinion. A.C. Sundberg 
has attempted to produce the proof that the Canon Muratori originated in the 
4th century in the East. Despite the erudition displayed and the extensive 
material worked over, one can probably not assent to this attempt, which is 
governed by too narrow a conception of the idea of a canon, but must adhere to 
the traditional definition of the time and place of the document: the Canon 
Muratori is a text which reflects the state of the canon question in the West 
(Rome?) about A.D. 200. 57 In view of its fragmentary character (the beginning 
is missing) we cannot say whether the document had any ‘official’ character or 
was a private work. It is to be assumed that with his list the author intends to 
establish which of the Church's writings are permitted for use and which are 
refused. 

The range of the NT, as it emerges from the Canon Muratori, presents no 
particular surprises: four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, Jude, 1 and 2 
John (here, curious to relate. Wisdom is also listed), and the Apocalypse - 
these are the recognised documents of the Church. The Apocalypse of Peter 
is rejected by ’some of our people’. The Shepherd of Hermas is only allowed 
for private use. The letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians are 
rejected, as are all kinds of heretical writings which are named at the end of 
the fragment. 


27 



New Testament Apocrypha 


The Canon Muratori thus gives us a picture of the extent of the NT about the year 
200. In addition we can also read off from it some tendencies which determined 
the development towards the completed canon. 

It must, however, be emphasised that in this much-discussed question of 
the ‘principles' of the text it must never be overlooked that this is not a matter 
of a theological tractate, and that the few hints as to the motives for acceptance 
or rejection of a writing which we can draw from the Muratorianum are probably 
indeed later reflection. However important and portentous such theological 
reflections may be (we may recall Irenaeus), they do not precede the acceptance 
of writings in the churches, but are later interpretations of the process, 
intended to provide the reasons for the delimitation and the exclusiveness of 
the recognised collection. 

What criteria for this delimitation emerge from the Canon Muratori? It is 
widely held that the author of the text adhered to the ‘prophetic-apostolic 
principle'. ‘The Old Testament was written by prophets, the New by apostles. 
Fundamentally, what does not derive from the apostles (toes not belong in the 
New Testament - that is the theoretical standpoint' (Lietzmann, p. 63, linking up 
with Hamack). This conception is based above all on the statements about the 
Shepherd of Hermas (lines 73ff.). J * 

Against this thesis Hans von Campenhausen has affirmed that the Canon 
Muratori 'is merely asking for documents which are ancient and reliable', i.e. the 
critical principle is ‘determined by historical or, if preferred, dogmatic-salvation- 
history considerations' (Formation, p. 254). Von Campenhausen also finds his 
support above all in the notice about Hermas. He thinks that this writing was 
excluded from the canon because its author was no longer a representative of the 
classical era. Hennas - such is the view of the Muratorianum - ‘does not belong 
in a canon which collects and gives binding force to documents of this primitive 
period. ‘Primitive Christianity’ finally belongs to the past, and may not be 
extended. This is the determining and delimiting principle behind the new 
Canon’ ( Formation , p. 259).” 

Apart from the questionable character of so far-reaching an interpretation 
of the fragment, it seems very doubtful whether one can so speak of a historical 
interest as a ‘principle’. On the other hand it is in fact not to be overlooked 
that for the author the reliability of the tradition which is now brought together 
in the canon in a certain fashion depends on the age of the writings. But this is not 
‘historical’ interest (in the modem sense). Rather the legitimation of a writing 
ensues through the demonstration of its origin from the first witnesses, i.e. the 
apostles. (The connection of the OT writings with the prophets corresponds to 
this). 

This recourse to the reliable witnesses is not a ‘principle’ which was decisive 
for the collection, but an interpretation of the facts. Here the significance of 
the regula fidei, both for the process of the collecting and for the interpreta¬ 
tion, is certainly to be assessed very high. In the Canon Muratori this rings out in 
the rejection of the ‘heretical writings'. In the canonised writings it is a matter of 
texts which correspond to the kccvgjv rfj<; aXTiddou;. But the truth which is 
proclaimed through these writings does not rest upon the statements of teachers 


28 



New Testament Apocrypha 


who have recently come forward (like Marcion), but on the witnesses of the 
earliest period, i.e. on the apostles called by the Lord. 

To sum up: the Canon Muratori presents a statement of the books which in his 
time were recognised by the Church as a ‘New Testament’. The author thus does 
not make the selection himself, but describes the actual stock. In so doing he sets 
up no ’principle’ for selection or rejection. That would be contrary to his 
intention. Rather he explains the actual range of the canon, or the exclusion of 
other writings. The motives which are to be recognised in this explanation are 
secondary reflections, and allow us to conjecture parallels in the theology of the 
time (e.g. Irenaeus), without the author developing them in detail. Here the 
exclusiveness of the canon (over against Marcionite and other heretical writings) 
is just as important as its apostolic anchoring. The apostolic tradition, as it comes 
to expression in the xavcov rfjq jrurreax;, is to be found in these writings and only 
in them. 

These remarks about the Canon Muratori perhaps go somewhat beyond what 
the text itself says. But they do more justice to it than the identification of 
‘principles’ or the reading-in of modem ideas of historicity. 

It was necessary to speak here in such detail of the Canon Muratori. It is not 
only the oldest canon catalogue which has come down to us. but from the 
interpretation of the text certain insights follow for the ‘apocryphal’ literature. 

Of the motives and the factors which led to the origin of ‘apocrypha’ 
something will be said later (see below, pp. 55ff.). Here it need only be remarked 
that parallel with the process of the formation of the canon there runs the 
production of apocryphal writings, that is of works in which also an attempt is 
made to fix normative tradition. This holds at least for many of the older writings, 
but quite specially for the gnostic apocrypha. In the later apocryphal literature, 
which arose after the completion of the canon, other motives and tendencies were 
influential. 

While in the churches the received and recognised writings gradually grew 
together into a New Testament, ’heretical’ writings, i.e. writings which did not 
correspond with the regula fidei , also staked their claims to communicate ‘true’ 
and ‘genuine’ tradition. Against these the Church defended itself by establishing 
the exclusiveness and finality of its canon. The Canon Muratori confirms this 
view of things. 

6. About the turn from the 2nd century to the 3rd. the development has reached 
a certain conclusion, in so far as it is now established that alongside the OT the 
Church also has a New Testament, the authority of which indeed is more highly 
rated, because it represents the norm for the interpretation of the older part of the 
Bible. The extent of the NT is fixed for the four Gospels, Acts and the letters of 
Paul (without Hebrews), while the Apocalypse, the ‘catholic’ epistles and 
Hebrews are variously assessed in the different regions of the Church. There was 
no change in this situation down to the 4th century. 

It can be readily understood that in the 3rd and 4th centuries we find all sorts 
of efforts towards a final settlement of the canon, and in particular a clear 
delimitation over against the ‘apocrypha’. For even if the basic decision has 
been taken in the sense outlined above, the differences with regard to the 


29 



New Testament Apocrypha 


extent of the NT must have been felt disturbing in the Church, which was steadily 
spreading throughout the entire empire. 

Origen, the great exegete, also concerned himself with this question. Eusebius 
has gathered together from the writings of Origen the statements relating to the 
canon and its range (H.E. VI25; translation below, pp.43ff.). We cannot deduce 
from these a canon catalogue in the technical sense (like the table in the Codex 
Claromontanus, for example; see below, p.37). Rather it is a matter of a 
discussion of the literature which in the various areas of the Church is recognised, 
disputed or rejected, and here On gen's own theological reflection is naturally of 
special significance. 40 

Origen distinguishes three categories of writings. 

1. opoXoyoopeva , i.e. the generally acknowledged writings; 

2. yrubfj , i.e. false writings forged by heretics (e.g. the Gospel of the 
Egyptians, the Gospel of the Twelve); 

3. ap$i(iaXXbp£va, i.e. writings about whose authenticity there is doubt (e.g. 
2 Peter, Hennas). 41 

This classification, which Eusebius later takes over (see below, pp. 47f.), is 
probably to be interpreted as meaning that Origen actually wished ‘to fix the 
situation statistically' (Jiilicher, Einleitung, p. 514). The judgments about indi¬ 
vidual writings in different churches ought not to be suppressed. This has the 
consequence that for a pan of the writings the judgment as to whether they belong 
in the canon remains open or uncertain. Unambiguously canonical according to 
Origen are: four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John and the 
Apocalypse. The remaining ‘catholic’ epistles are indeed frequently cited by 
him, but according to his statements are not generally recognised. Other works 
treasured and quoted by Origen (Hennas, the Didache, Barnabas) are not 
regarded as holy scripture. 

His attitude towards the Apocalypse is interesting. Origen reckons it to the 
canon, but has little sympathy for it (Euseb. H.E. VI 25.9). This NT book then 
remains disputed right down to the 4th century. 42 This can be seen in the 
attitude adopted by Dionysius of Alexandna in the middle of the 3rd 
century. 43 In the West, in contrast, it belongs firmly to the canon from the end 
of the 2nd century. 

Hebrews, on the other hand, was early recognised as a Pauline letter in the 
East, while the West rejected it down to the 4th century (cf. Jerome, Ep. 129.3). 
With regard to some 'catholic' epistles also the uncertainty seems to have lasted 
a long time. Only gradually did a seven-letter canon develop out of an original 
three-letter canon (James, 1 Peter, 1 John), and that very differently in the 
various areas. 44 

In the canon catalogue of the Codex Claromontanus (see below, p. 37) the 
seven 'catholic' epistles and the Apocalypse are reckoned to the canon, but not 
Hebrews. It is striking that Hcrmas, the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of 
Peter are named in this catalogue - and probably as recognised writings. This 
speaks for a relatively early dating of the text. When and where it originated 
is, however, disputed. It is widely assumed that here we have a Latin version 
of a Greek text of the 3rd century; 45 but this cannot be proved. 


30 



New Testament Apocrypha 


In the 4th century the tendency towards unification grew stronger in every 
sphere of the Church’s life (liturgy, organisation, Church order, etc.). The canon 
also was affected by this. 

Eusebius of Caesarea, who in his Church History devoted a chapter of its own 
to the problem of the canon (H.E. Ill 25; see below, p.47f.), certainly still reflects 
the situation of the 3rd century, but tends strongly towards delimitation. 
Following the example of Origen, he divides the Church’s literature into three 
categories. 

1. opoXoTOupcva, the generally recognised writings (four Gospels, Acts, 
fourteen Pauline letters - thus despite reservations including Hebrews - 1 John 
and 1 Peter); 

2. (rniArjopeva, the writings which in some churches are recognised, in 
others disputed (the remaining ‘catholic’ epistles); 

3. voda, the spurious and therefore rejected writings (Acts of Paul, Hennas, 
Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas and the Didache). 

It is interesting that Eusebius names the Apocalypse twice. On the one hand 
he mentions it among the recognised writings (‘provided it is considered 
proper'); on the other it is named among the spurious (‘which some, as has been 
mentioned, reject but which others reckon among the recognised writings’: H.E. 
Ill 25.4). This uncertainty with regard to the Apocalypse leads to certain 
contradictions in Eusebius’ enumeration. But apart from the vacillation on this 
question it is clear that in the Eastern Church in that period there was a NT 
extending to twenty-one books (i.e. without the four smaller ‘catholic’ epistles 
and the Apocalypse) or twenty-six Books (i.e. without the Apocalypse). 

Finally it is to be observed that Eusebius knows some apocryphal writings 
(like the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter) as works to be rejected. This 
indicates that, despite the stabilisation of the canon which appears in him, the 
‘inauthentic’ writings were still read and used. 

Later writers of the 4th century confirm that the canon of twenty-six books 
has largely prevailed (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV 36; Gregory of Nazianzus, 
Carm. I 12), while in others the old suspicions against Hebrews, the smaller 
‘catholic’ epistles and naturally the Apocalypse are repeated (Amphilochius of 
Iconium, Iambi ad Seleucum 289ff., pp. 38f. Oberg). 

A clear acknowledgement of the NT canon of twenty-seven books appears 
in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius of Alexandria for the year 367 (translation 
below, pp. 49f.). Here the threefold division of Origen or Eusebius is abandoned. 
As ‘springs of salvation' there are only the twenty-seven writings in which ‘the 
doctrine of piety is proclaimed’. Over against them are set the apocrypha 
fabricated by the heretics. Only the Didache and Hermas - beside a few OT 
apocrypha - are permitted for reading by those newly received into the Church, 
since the Fathers have so appointed. But these writings are not ravovi^ojicva. 
We may however infer from the concession that the two writings mentioned still 
enjoyed very great esteem. 

There is no question that the emphasis on the exclusiveness and finality of 
the canon is closely connected with Athanasius’ total theological conception, 
anti-heretical and Bible-related. 4 * Over and above that it has to be observed 



New Testament Apocrypha 


that precisely in the years after 362 the Alexandrian's concern was directed 
towards the unity of the ‘orthodox’ Church, and hence that for him a uniform 
canon was also a necessity. 

It is important that Athanasius turns sharply against all apocrypha, and that too 
under appeal to the ‘Fathers’: ‘And although, beloved, the former [the recognised 
writings] are in the canon and the latter [Hermas and the Didache] serve as 
reading matter, yet mention is nowhere mack of the apocrypha; rather they are a 
fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and 
generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be 
able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion 
to deceive the guileless.’ 

With this the lines are drawn as sharply as possible between canonical and 
apocryphal writings. Whatever they may be in terms of their origin, their 
content or their age, the ‘apocrypha’ are downgraded as heretical and therefore 
excluded from any ecclesiastical use. We cannot establish what effect 
Athanasius’ letter had outside of Egypt. We may conjecture that it advanced 
the recognition of the seven ‘catholic ’ epistles in the East, but it could not remove 
the opposition to the Apocalypse. This book only achieved its firm place in the 
canon of the Greek Church in the 10th century. 

In the West the completion of the canon came about earlier. After Hebrews 
and part of the ‘catholic’ epistles (probably under the influence of the Greek 
Church) had won canonical status in the course of the 4th century, the number of 
the twenty-seven books was at the end of the 4th century firmly documented, as 
the catalogue of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum shows (translation below, 
pp.38ff.). Certainly there were still uncertainties here and there (cf. Kiimmel, pp. 
35 If.), but on the whole the range of the NT stands fast. 

It may be briefly noted that in the areas in which the Syriac tongue was 
dominant the development of the canon took a somewhat different course. On 
the one hand the Diatessaron of Tatian was here in use down to the 5th century, 
in place of the ‘separated’ four Gospels. On the other, judgment as to parts of 
the ‘Apostolos’ long remained very vacillating. It is striking that 3 Corinthians, 
which was originally a part of the apocryphal Acts of Paul (see vol. n, chapter 
XV 3), was in Syria widely treated as canonical. 

From the 5th century on there was a gradual assimilation, but at very 
varying pace, to the rest of the Church. The East Syrians retained a canon of 
twenty-two books (without the four minor ‘catholic’ letters and the Apocalypse), 
while among the West Syrians an assimilation took place. 47 

These differences as to the extent of the canon, however, (to not alter the 
fact that in all regions of the Church in the 4th century the fundamental 
decision has been taken: the Church has a holy scripture of Old and New 
Testaments, which stands as a closed entity (despite variations in compass) over 
against the apocryphal, i.e. heretical, writings. 

7. This brief sketch of the history of the NT canon has probably made it 
clear thru in view of the not very extensive source material it is difficult to 
present the development without any gaps. Only too often we can guess at 
connections, but not prove them. Despite this it is probably also clear that a 
treatment of the apocryphal literature cannot leave aside a consideration of the 


32 



New Testament Apocrypha 


history of the canon. The following aspects are of significance: 

a) The collection of twenty-seven writings which prevailed in the Church 
from the 4th century on as a complete and normative holy scripture (alongside the 
OT) was not created by any decree of Church government, but grew together in 
a long process. The presupposition for the genesis of such a collection was the 
living use of the individual writings in the churches. It was readily comprehen¬ 
sible that the need for clarity as to what was ‘genuine’ and ‘true’ Jesus tradition 
and apostolic tradition should lead to a collection recognised by the Church. 
Since the number of the apocryphal documents increased considerably in the 
course of the 2nd century, delimitation had to ensue. But this also means that the 
writings later canonised and the ‘apocryphal’ stand in some relation to one 
another - which must be determined for each individual text. 

b) The Old Testament had from the beginning a firm place in the Church, but 
was always subject to interpretation by faith in Jesus Christ The ‘new scripture’ 
is thus superior to the old, but grew together with it into the two-part Bible. Here 
the differences in compass for a long time evidently did not have the weight 
which one might assum