CNT-16 THE DISPUTED NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS.
THE DISPUTED NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS.
We have seen that the church of Christ in the remotest antiquity recognized three classes of writings current among them.
First, those which were received by all without dispute, as genuine, apostolic writings. These comprehended the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first Epistle of John. About the reception of these there was no question or dispute in the earliest ages. They were received by orthodox and heterodox; they were read in the churches; they were quoted by ancient Christian writers so fully that Dr. Tregelles says of one single writer, Origen, “Although a very large number of his works are lost, and many others have come down to us only in defective Latin versions, we can, in his extant writings alone (I speak this from actual knowledge and examination) find cited at least two-thirds of the New Testament.”
There were, then, asecond classof books which were indispute. They were not rejected; on the contrary, they were received by many with as full confidence as any other books. But some, for various reasons, stood in doubt of them. These books were, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. In thethird placethere were books which wereabsolutely rejectedfrom the sacred canon. Some, like the Epistle of Barnabas, the first Epistle of Clement, Bishop of Rome, and the Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius, were regarded as the genuine writings of good men, and were counted worthy of perusal, but regarded as not possessing apostolic authority. Others were admitted to be the genuine writings of Christian men, but were full of errors and puerile conceits. Others still were forgeries and falsehoods, as in the case of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, of which Tertullian writes that “in Asia the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from the love of Paul, was removed from his office.” In discussing the corruptions of the New Testament it is proper to offer some suggestions concerning the disputed books which we have named. The fact that a book is disputed no more proves it to be a false book, than the fact that a man is accused proves him to be a criminal. As a man accused of crime is held innocent until his guilt be proved, so a book bearing the name of any individual may be held to be his genuine work until evidence to the contrary is adduced. The authorship of a forged or spurious book can often be determined, as in the case of The Acts of Paul and Thecla; or in the case of the Book of Mormon, which has been proved to be substantially a romance written by a minister named Spaulding, which came into the possession of certain schemers, and was made the foundation of a new religion. But no one has ever succeeded in establishing any other date or authorship for the disputed Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Apocalypse. They must have been written by someone; and if they had been impostures the fact would naturally have been known, and their true authorship would most likely have been ascertained.
Concerning these books we may remark—First: they were all written later than most of the other books. The second Epistle of Peter was written in his old age, near the end of his life; for he says, “I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up, by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. Moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” 2Pe 1:13-15. This Epistle also warns the church of the presence of false teachers and apostates; which indicates that sufficient time had elapsed from the foundation of the churches for apostasy and decay to commence. The Epistle of James also notes the corrupting influence of wealth in the church. The Epistle of Jude declares that certain men had already crept in unawares, and turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. The book of Revelation was also written at a very late date, near the close of the first century. Of course writings could not be received until after they were written; and these books were not written until long after most of the other apostolic writings had been received. Paul’s thirteen Epistles must have been written previous to AD 65, the time of his death; the Acts of the Apostles was written while he was yet alive; the Gospel by Luke was a still earlier production; and previous to this, “many” persons had “taken in hand” to write accounts of the life and ministry of Christ. Most of the undisputed books were well-known and universally received long before these later productions appeared; and of course, as these made their way slowly from hand to hand, and from church to church, being carefully scrutinized at every step, the lateness of their origin is a sufficient reason for the hesitation with which they were accepted. They were received by some, who knew their origin, with all confidence; others, who did not know the facts, waited till their authority was established.
Second, most of these writings were not directed to any particular church. The second and third Epistles of John seem to have been personal letters to friends. The second Epistle of Peter is to “them that have obtained like precious faith;” the Epistle of James is to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad;” while the Epistle of Jude is to “them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.” The Epistle to the Hebrews has no local address or superscription. When epistles were sent by trusty messengers to the Corinthians, the Ephesians, or the Colossians, it was only necessary to go to those cities and consult the original documents to decide the claims of the writings. But these “catholic” or general epistles, which were of the nature of circulars, or tracts, would not be so readily traced, and hence would naturally require more careful scrutiny. The question would arise, Who first received this epistle? Where does it come from? Who vouches for it as being a genuine apostolic writing? To answer such inquiries would require time; and it was not until these questions had been settled again and again, to the satisfaction of different individuals and churches, that these books could be generally received.
Third, in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, there was the additional fact that it was sent forth anonymously, and of course this must have increased the difficulty of establishing its apostolic authority. And yet, in spite of all these difficulties, these books, at first received by few, were gradually introduced to the ever-widening circle of Christian believers, and shortly made their way to universal acceptance. This could not have been the case unless there had been sound and substantial grounds for their reception. There was no lack of vigilance on the part of the early Christians. There were plenty of spurious writings abroad which they did not hesitate to reject and denounce. No central ecclesiastical authority prescribed their faith, or commanded them to accept one book and reject another. The whole matter was settled by evidence which was convincing to the churches and individuals concerned. A few suggestions concerning these disputed books may be appropriate. The second and third Epistles of John, being apparently personal letters, could not, in the nature of things, be expected to receive that early public recognition which was accorded to his other writings. It was most natural that they should be received with caution; and it would require considerable time to effect their introduction among the genuine books of the New Testament. We find, however, that Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 115-190), quotes the seventh and eighth verses of the second Epistle of John, and that Dionysius of Alexandria (AD 231) mentions the second and third Epistles as ascribed to John the apostle. The Epistle of Jude, like these of John, is mentioned in the ancient Muratorian Canon about AD 175, and Tertullian, AD 200, repeatedly cites this Epistle, expressly saying that “Enoch possesses a testimony in the apostle Jude.” And Clement of Alexandria (AD 185) also repeatedly quotes from this Epistle as Scripture. The Epistle of James is expressly mentioned by Origen, AD 200. He was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria, and there is a record of a lost work of Clement which contained a summary of the Epistle of James. The Epistle of James, being addressed to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad, would most naturally be early known at Alexandria. Irenaeus, speaking of Abraham, says, “He was called the friend of God,” which seems to be a quotation from Jas 2:23. The very ancient Syriac Version also contains the Epistle of James, though it lacks some of the other disputed books, which may not have been written or known when that translation was made. As this Epistle was addressed to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad, it would very naturally find its way among the Syrian Christians, and be received by them at an earlier date than among the Greeks and Latins. But in due time it came to be generally received, and even Clement of Rome (AD 91-100) quotes, “Through faith and hospitality a son was given to Abraham in old age, and by obedience he offered him a sacrifice to God; by faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved,” apparently referring quite distinctly to that justification by faith and also by works, as taught in the Epistles of Paul, and in the Epistle of Jas 2:21-26. The second Epistle of Peter was also a disputed book. This was written at a late date, and without specific address; though it plainly purports to be the production of the apostle Peter. It appears, however, to have been addressed to the persons to whom Peter had previously written his First Epistle (2Pe 3:1-2), and we know that the first Epistle was addressed to “the strangers scattered abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia.” We should not therefore look for the second Epistle to be received earliest at Rome or at Alexandria; but we should look for evidence of its authority in the region to which it was sent.
About the year AD 256, Firmilian, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote a letter to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in which he charges the Bishop of Rome with “abusing the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, as if they had delivered this doctrine, though they in their Epistles have execrated heretics and admonished us to avoid them.” Now we find no mention of heretics or false prophets and false teachers in the first Epistle of Peter; but the second Epistle, in the second chapter, contains explicit warnings of false teachers who were to arise and “privily bring in damnable heresies.” So, from Firmilian, Bishop of Cappadocia, AD 256, we have an express reference to this second Epistle of Peter, which like the first Epistle, was written “to the strangers scattered throughout ... Cappadocia.” Taking root in these fields, the Epistle shortly spread and was finally acknowledged elsewhere and everywhere. The book of Revelation was questioned by a few who did not accept the doctrines which it taught; much as Martin Luther questioned the authority of the Epistle of James, because he, just emerging from darkness, did not understand how to reconcile its teachings with those of Paul concerning justification by faith. Some have claimed that the Apocalypse differs in style from the writings of John. But style depends upon the subject; and there is no greater difference in the style than there is in the themes of these different writings. But whatever doubts may have crept in concerning the book of Revelation, two or three hundred years after it was written, there is no record of such doubts in the earlier periods of Christian history. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the churches to which the book of Revelation was sent, wrote about AD 177 a work On the Revelation of John. Irenaeus, who was familiarly acquainted with those who had known the beloved disciple before his death, not only accepted this book as the work of John, but fixes its date, saying that the Apocalyptic vision “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."
Justin Martyr, who lived within a few years of the time of the apostles, held a discussion or dialogue with Trypho, “the most distinguished among the Hebrews of the day.” In this discussion, which occurred at Ephesus, the seat of one of the churches to which the Apocalypse was sent (Rev 1:11), and which was the last abode of John, and the place of his burial; not more than fifty years from the time of his death, and of course surrounded by many who personally knew the beloved disciple, Justin says: “There was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a Revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ should dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal, resurrection and judgment of all men, would likewise take place.” We may add that Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch about AD 180, in his book Against the Heresies of Hermogenis, makes use of testimonies from the Revelation of John. Numerous other witnesses might be cited, but if the testimony of Justin, the learned philosopher and martyr, given on the very soil where John lived and died, and within fifty years of the date of his death, cannot be accepted, it is useless to adduce later evidence. The church at Ephesus, the home of John and one of the churches to which the Revelation was sent, were competent witnesses concerning the authorship of that book. And Justin Martyr, testifying from Ephesus, gives us ample proof concerning its apostolic origin and authority, which indeed would never have been questioned had not later writers accepted and taught doctrines different from those contained in the Apocalypse and believed by the earlier generations of the church.
There remains one other book to be noticed among the disputed writings, and that is…