“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