There is much that is still far from clear as re
CATHOLIC EPISTLES
CATHOLIC EPISTLES
361
gards the ori^'in and use of the terms Catholic and Canonical iu this connexion. Dill'erent views have been taken of the precise meaning and intention of the title Catholic. Some fanciful speculations have also been indulged in. It has been supposed by some ( Pareus, Prolog, in Jac. ) that the name naSoXiitoi as applied to these Kl'P. was accidental, no definite purpose being attached to it. It has been supposed by others to be intended to express their doctrinal harmony; Au^sti, e.g., talcing it to designate them as ' in der Lehre iiberein- Btiramende Schriften.' The main explanations proposed, however, are these.
1. That the term refers to the authorship of these writings and their position as a distinct group. This is the view of Hug, who regards the word as a ' technical expression for one class of biblical writ- ings which possesses it exclusively and communi- cates it to no other ; namely, for that class which comprised in itself the didactical compositions of the apostles collectively, with the exception of Paul, Ka&oXt/c6s, i.e. KaB6\ou jrai avW-ri^Sriv. When the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles constituted one peculiar division, the works of Paul also another, there still remained writings of dillcrent authors which might likewise form a collection by them- selves, to which a name must be civen. It might most aptly be called the common collection, KaSoXiKiy avmayixa, of the apostles, and the treatises con- tained in it, Koival and KaBoKiKai, which are com- monly used by the Greeks as sj-nonymous.' He appeals in support of this to Clcnient of Alexan- dria, who, he says, 'calls the Epistle, which was dictated by the assembly of the apostles (Ac 15**), the Catholic Epiitle, as that in which all the apostles had a share, r'riv dirirroXiif Ka.8o\iKT]v tQh iiTo<rT6Xu>' a-jrifTui'.' Whence he concludes that ' the seven Epistles are Catholic, or Epistles of all the apostles, who are authors' (introa. to Writings of NT, p. 537, etc.. Wait's tr.). This explanation has been followed more or less completely by Schleiermacher and Pott, by Kiclihorn so far, and some others. Otherwise it h.as met with little favour. It is not borne out by Clement's statement. It disregards the fact tliat tlie term Catholic is ap-
filied by early ecclesiastical writers to compositions ike the Ep. of Harnabas, the Ep. of Uionysius, the Ep. of riiemison. It makes ^jri<rToXol KaBo\iKal equivalent to al Xoiirai ^TTKTToXai Kad^Xou. But there is nothing to show that the term /tafloXinit was em- ployed elsewhere to expre.ss any such idea as that of common apostolic authorship, one collection of writings written by all the apostles together.
2. Others, therefore, take the term to refer to the place of these Epistles in tlie Church, their ecclesiastical recognition, the fact that they were universally received as genuine, their canonicity. Michaelis (Introd. to AT, vi. p. 270, Marsh's tr.) takes this view, holding that the word was used by Origen to distingtiish 1 P and 1 .In as undis- puted Ejip. from 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, and Jude, about which there was no such consent of opinion, and that it was given also to these live in course of time as they ceased to be doubled. This explana- tion, or one not materially dillcrent, is given also by Home, (iuericke, and others. It is supposed by some that there is an indi<ation of the identifica- tion of the word Catholic with the word Canonical in the Miiratorian Eragment, in the puzzling sen- tence ' Epistolasanc .Judic etsuiierscriptio Johannis duas in Catholica habentur.' Some refer in support of this view to the pa.ssage in which Eusebius, speaking of James who is ' said to have written the first of tlie Catholic Epistles,' and of Jude as also ' one of the seven Catholic Epistles,' adds that 'nevertheless wo know that these, with the rest, are publicly used in most of the churches' (HE ii. 23). This is relevant, however, to the question of
public use in the church, but not to more. For il speaks also of James as 'considered spurious {foBeOerai). Most found rather on the passage, also in Eusebius {HE iii. 3), in which mention is made of certain works ascribed to Peter, his Acts, the Gospel according to Peter, the Preaching, and the Revelation of Peter, and it is said of them ' we know nothing of their being handed down among catholic writings (olio' fiXois iv xatfoXivois Cff/xex irapa- SeBoniva), for neither of the ancients nor of tliose of our own time has any ecclesiastical writer made use of testimonies from them.' Here, it is thought, the word in the phrase iv khSoXiko'is must have the sense of genuine, utnlisputed, universally received. Others, however, think the phrase may mean ' handed down among catholic Christians (Charteris, Canonicity, p. 2S!)), or publicly read in the churches, the question of genuineness not being in view (Kirchhofer, Quelletutammlung, p. 257). It is with the distinction between disputed and undisputed books that Eusebius deals there. But what is referred to in his statement is not one class of the NT books, but these books as a whole ; not the Catholic Epp. in particular, but the Catholic writings (ypaiiuiv) generally. Further, if the sense sui)posed were the true sense, the term would he no distinctive title of these seven Epistles, marking them off from the Pauline Epistles, which were no less canonical or generally recognised in the Church. Nor does this view consist with the fact that the term catholic is used by Origen, as we have seen, of the Ep. of li.arnabas, and by Eusebius of the Epp. of Dionysius of Corinth to the Lacedcemonians, the Athenians, the Nicomedi- ani, and other Churches (HE iv. 23), of none of which it could be said that they were canonical or universally received. Nor has it regard, again, to the fact that only some of the seven Epistles were universally received at the time when the term was applied to the group as a whole. Eusebius himself in his chapter on ' The Divine Scriptures acknowledged as genuine, and tho.se that are not' (HE iii. 25), distinguishes 1 Jn and 1 P as iv o^oXo- yovfUirott from the other five as of the amXeyofjUvuiv yvuiplixwv S' o!>v o^I'j roh iroXXois. There is nothing in the facts to contliot with the idea that this came in course of lime to be the sense. There is every- thing to rebut the assertion that it was the original and proper sense.