On the whole subject of this article, reference may be made, further, to such articles as BIBLE, CANON, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, GOSPELS, NEW TESTA- MENT CANON, PAUL, etc., as well as to the separate articles on the various books of the NT, and the Literature appended to these.
J. A. M‘CLYMONT.
“NEW TESTAMENT CANON.—
Introduction—general character of the history of the forma- tion of the Canon—considerations to be borne in mind in esti- mating the facts—the chief periods.
A, From end of apostolic age to δ. a.p. 220.—Circumstances specially affecting the evidence for the Gospels.
i. The sub-apostolic age.—Its documents—Ep. of Clem, Rom. to the Corinthians—Epp. of Ignatius and Polycarp—evidence as to the use of (1) the Gospels, (2) other NT writings.
ii. The second quarter of the 2nd century,
(1) The use of the Gospels—Ep. of Barnabas—the Didaché— Shepherd of Hermas— Fragments of Papias — the so-called 2nd Ep. of Clement—Justin Martyr—Gnostic heretics — Montanists,
(2) Use of other writings of NT.
iil, Third quarter of 2nd century—Tatian.
iy. Last quarter of 2nd century and beginning of 8rd.—The impugners of St. John’s writings—Theophilus—the evidence atforded by works of Irenwus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- andria, Hippolytus, (1) Writings whose place in the Canon was already, at and from this time, fully secured, (a) Remarks upon the area from which this evidence comes; (4) inferences that may be drawn as to the previous history of the recep of these writings in the Church. (2) Writings whose position continued to be for a time doubtful.
From δ. a.p. 220-328.—The teaching and works of Origen and their inflaence—judgment of Dionysius of Alexandria on the Apocalypse—evidence of Eusebius as regards the Canon,
©. Concluding period.—Influences favourable to a final settie- ment —lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius
the Cheltenham Catalogue, Third Council of Carthage — evidence for Rome and other neighbouring Churches—Councl)
**Copyright, 1900, by Uharies Scribner's Sons
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
which they have ever since held. B, the second, extends, roughly speaking, to the pacification of the empire under Constantine (A.D. 323). It was a time of comparison between the lists of NT Scriptures accepted in different Churches, and dis- cussion of the claims of those not universally received ; but there was much uncertainty still in regard to certain books. C. From A.D. 323 on- wards, the final settlement, though it was attained at various times in different parts of the Church.
A, FROM THE END OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE EARLY YEARS OF THE THIRD CENTURY.— In reviewing this period, it will be convenient to subdivide. Further, under each subdivision the evidence as to the use of the Gospels and as to that of other writings of the NT should be separately examined. There is more than one reason for proceeding thus. It is probable that, even before a comprehensive collection of the sacred writings of the new dispensation was thought of, its forma- tion was being advanced through the independent formation of groups of writings which afterwards became important constituent elements of the whole body, as well as by the recognition of the authority of individual writings which might or might not belong to these groups. ‘Two of these minor collections, the making of which must readily have suggested itself, would seem to have been that of the Four Gospels and that of the Epistles of St. Paul. The rolls on which the writings of these two classes were written were commonly kept, we may imagine, each in its own roll-case.
The evidence as to the reception of the Gospels is affected by special circumstances. Owing to the nature of their subject-matter—the occurrence of the same sayings and incidents in different Gospels, the possibility that some of these may have been found also in other documents or orally reported—it may not be open to us to infer with certainty the use of any particular Gospel from parallelisms of statement and of language between them and early Christian writers. On the other hand, when a striking, unusual sentence or phrase found in one of the other writings of NT appears in a work of post-apostolic times, even though it may not be introduced as a quotation, there can generally be little doubt that there is a literary relationship between the two, and that it was not the NT writer who was the borrower.
But this is not all. The facts of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and His words made up the substance of the Gospel. Owing to the sublimity of the subject, men’s eyes were turned at first solely to it, and away from the witnesses and the form of the records. The substance was felt to be everything. For some time little sense is shown of the importance of reproducing accurately the individual testimony of different writers. There was also a very natural disposition to combine various accounts with a view to greater fulness or succinctness. Not a few probable illustrations of this tendency might be given, and a very elaborate effort of the kind was made soon after the middle of the 2nd century.
The manner in which τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is used (sing. and with def. art.) is another illustration of the same or similar habits of thought. It occurs where the existence of the evangelic history in a written form is implied; and some have inferred that those who so expressed themselves knew only of one such document. But there seems to be no ground for this. The mode of speech in question shows only that the characteristics of the several written embodiments of the Gospel were but slightly regarded in comparison with its general contents and purport. Writers who unquestion- ably were acguainted with several works of the