RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Muratoriaa
to assert his own personal knowledge of the facts recalls that the version of the Acts prevalent in the west until the time of Jerome had the first personal pronoun from xi. 27 on, instead of from xvi. 10; this favored the exaggerated idea, met in Irenseus and elsewhere, that Luke narrated in the Acts only what he had himself been concerned in. This would explain the now generally accepted reading of lines 37, 38, according to which Luke accounts for closing his narrative before the martyrdom of Peter and the departure of Paul from Rome on his Spanish journey, both of which events occurred, according to the author, before the writing of the Acts.
The Pauline epistles are treated (lines 39-68) in the following order of those addressed to churches:
I and II Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal.,
2. Pauline I and II Thess., Rom. This order
Epistles, the author considers to represent that
of their composition; its beginning and end are nearly those of Tertullian's list, and there may be indications of the same order both in Clement of Rome and in the East. After discussing these epistles, addressed (like John's admonitions in Revelation) to seven churches, as typifying or symbolizing the universal Church, he proceeds to the letters addressed to individuals, asserting their reception by the Catholic Church. Then he mentions two epistles written in the name of Paul after the rise of the heresy of Marcion, those to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians. The existence of the former, which is found in many Latin scriptural manuscripts, is attested by Priscillian, Philaster, and Jerome, by a Liber de divinis scripturis, wrongly ascribed to Augustine, yet of the fourth century, and by some ancient prologues to the Pauline epistles; in the East the evidence for it runs from 370 to 800. That its composition can not be dated as late as the period covered by these authors and dates is clear enough; it is out of the question that about 380, when the proceeedings for a definite settlement of the canon had gone far both in East and West, a new Pauline epistle should have found its way into the Bible. At this very time Jerome says it was " rejected by all "; and that this is not hyperbole is shown by the fact that in his discussion of the canon Eusebius never once mentions it. Its inclusion in some western Bibles of the end of the fourth century can only be the belated influence of a far-distant past; and to such a past belongs, the protest of the Fragment. It is also now generally believed that an apocryphal epistle of John which is first cited about 370 by Optatus was included in the " Acts of John " of Leucius, written 160-70. It is quite possible that like this and III Cor. the epistle to the Laodiceans and that to the Alexandrians (not now extant) formed part of widely circulated legends of the apostles in the second century.
Under the head of other writings recognized in the Catholic Church (lines 68-73) there is first an assertion of the canonicity of Jude and two epistles of John. There has been much discussion as to whether this means the first and second or the second and third. It is probable, according to the modern reading of the text, that the author men-
tions two letters designated as those of John in their traditional titles, without deciding the question whether John really wrote them. 3. Other These can only be the second and Writings, third, whose writer calls himself merely " the elder." Having already treated the first, though only incidentally, in connection with the Fourth Gospel, and there declared his unquestioning belief in its Johannine origin (lines 26-34), the author felt able here to confine himself to the two smaller letters. Next follows a remarkable mention of the " Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honor," which is rendered more intelligible by the conjecture of Tregelles that the translator had before him a Greek phrase which attributed the book of Wisdom to Philo, according to a wide-spread western tradition, and made hypo philon out of hypo Philonos. The book was naturally mentioned next to the epistles of John, because like them it was read in the Church in spite of the incorrectness or doubtfulness of its usual title. The words which close this section are not susceptible of a rational explanation as they stand, " We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter only, although some of us will not have [them, or, the latter] read in church" [ANF. v. 604]. Even the mention and still more the recognition of an Apocalypse of Peter in the West is inconceivable in the light of the fact that not a single quotation from the oldest western writers can be adduced to show their knowledge of it; and it is equally difficult to account for the failure to mention at least I Peter in a work of this kind. The most probable hypothesis is that of the loss of a few words, perhaps of a line, in which I Peter and the Apocalypse of John were named as received, and II Peter as objected to by some members of the church. The Shepherd of Hermas is discussed in lines 73-80, with the assertion that it should never be read in divine service on a footing with the prophets and apostles, while the duty of reading it elsewhere (presumably in small, informal gatherings or in catechetical instruction) is insisted on. The subsequent history of the Shepherd corresponds to the position of compromise here adopted. The Fragment closes with the rejection of certain writings which are in use among heretical parties (lines 81-85). In these lines the corruption of the text and perhaps the defects of the translation reach their height, so that the establishment of a satisfactory text is almost hopeless. The mention of Valentinus is intelligible, for his school had a special " True Gospel " besides the canonical ones; Basilides also gave out a gospel of his own, and used all sorts of Apocryphal writings. The most obscure point is the connection of the name of Marcion with " a new book of psalms."
IV. Ruling Ideas: The tone of the whole treatise is not that of legislation but of explanatory statement of an established condition of things, with only a single instance of difference of opinion among members of the Catholic Church. There is no difference in authority between the Old Testament ("the prophets") and the New ("the apostles " ). The only distinction is that the number of the former class is fixed, while that of the latter
Bturatorian Murphy