supposition of forgery. The mention of St. Paul's Epp., however (315. 16), as if they were already known to the Asiatic Churches, and in the same category as the other Scriptures' (ràs λoiràs ypapás), as well as the marked resemblance of this Ep., in style, to the recently discovered Apocalypse of Peter,' seem to imply a post-apostolic date; and there is much to favour the view of Prof. W. M. Ramsay, who regards the Ep. as the work of a disciple who was full of the spirit and words of his teacher, and who believed so thoroughly that he was giving the words of his teacher that he attributed it to that teacher.' See, further, PETER (EPISTLES OF).

(d) The Ep. of Jude.-This Epistle is in the name of Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.' The James whom the writer here claims as his brother was the well-known head of the Church at Jerusalem, one of our Lord's brethren, and the writer of the Ep. that bears his name; and therefore Jude is not to be identified with any of the apostles of the same name mentioned in the Gospels. There is such a striking resemblance between this Ep. (consisting of a single chapter) and the 2nd chapter of 2 P as to justify the belief that the one was borrowed from the other. But as this Ep. has some features of originality about it which the other lacks, we may infer that Peter and not Jude was the borrower-a supposition confirmed by the way in which certain quotations in Jude from non-canonical Jewish Scriptures almost disappear from 2 P, along with one or two references to Levitical uncleanness, as if the writer desired as far as possible to adapt his writing for general use. This Ep. is full of sharp and stern denunciation aimed at practical evils of a most heinous character, founded on a gross abuse of Christian liberty. It probably emanated from Palestine in the period immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. See, further, art. JUDE (EPISTLE OF).

(e) The 1st Ep. of John.-There is abundance of evidence, both external and internal, to prove that this Ep. was written by the author of the Fourth Gospel, and forms a sequel to it. The readers are not specified, but in all probability it was addressed in the first instance to the Churches of Asia, among whom St. John spent the latter part of his life. The writer speaks in a quiet tone of authority, as if he were well known to his readers and were well acquainted with their dangers and their needs. He insists on the translation into the Christian life of those great truths regarding the fellowship of God with man, which, in the Fourth Gospel, are exhibited in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

(f) The 2nd Ep. of John.-This Ep. has all the appearance of being genuine. It bears a strong resemblance to the 1st, no fewer than 7 of its 13 verses having something parallel in the other. It is addressed Unto the elect lady and her children,' by whom we are probably to understand a Church and its members; and the object of the Ep. is to warn them against the insidious and corrupting influence of certain heretical teachers who were going about denying the reality of Christ's humanity. The title of the elder,' which the writer assumes, implies that he was a wellknown personage in the Church, and is one that could be fitly claimed by St. John as the last of the apostles.

(g) The 3rd Ep. of John.-This Ep., like the 2nd, is written in the name of the elder,' and it has so many expressions in common with the other that they have been fitly termed 'twins. It gives us a momentary glimpse of Church life in Asia towards the close of the 1st cent., and illustrates the practical difficulties which had to be encountered in the government of the Church. It

VOL. III.-34

6

is addressed Unto Gaius the beloved,' a faithful and liberal member of the Church, whose influence and example the writer invokes, in opposition to the intolerant and factious conduct of an ambitious ecclesiastic named Diotrephes, who had gone so far as to close his doors on the brethren' who had come in the name of the elder,' apparently bearing a letter from him-perhaps our 2nd Epistle. See, further, JOHN (EPISTLES OF).

5. The Revelation of St. John.-The Apocalypse has experienced greater vicissitudes as regards its acceptance in the Church than any other book of the NT, owing partly to the Chiliastic views associated with it, and partly to the marked difference in its language and style as compared with the other works ascribed to St. John. It bears to be written by John to the seven Churches which are in Asia'; and it is a significant fact that its apostolic authorship was accepted by Justin Martyr (not to mention some earlier apparent witnesses\ in the dialogue which he held with Trypho at Ephesus within half a century after St. John's death. Its wide divergence from the Fourth Gospel, both in ideas and in language, may be accounted for in some measure by the difference in the nature and contents of the two books. the one being mainly narrative or colloquial, the other formed on the model of Jewish apocalypse; and there are not wanting some important features of resemblance between them, betokening an identity of authorship. With regard to the date of this book, there is a growing conviction that the theory which connects it with the persecution in the reign of Nero, and puts its composition before the destruction of Jerusalem, must be abandoned, and that the tribulation' referred to (19) was that which befell Christians in the provinces, especially in Asia Minor, at a later date, when they refused to pay divine honour to the emperor. The main theme of the book is the second coming of Christ, pictorially set forth as the glorious consummation of great struggles and marvellous events. Its unity has recently been assailed, but the attempts to disintegrate it have not met with general acceptance. See, further, art. REVELATION (BOOK OF).

On the whole subject of this article, reference may be made, further, to such articles as BIBLE, CANON, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, GOSPELS, NEW TESTAMENT 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 formation of the Canon-considerations to be borne in mind in estimating the facts-the chief periods.

A. From end of apostolic age to c. A.D. 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 DidachéShepherd of Hermas- Fragments of Papias-the so-called 2nd Ep. of Clement-Justin Martyr-Gnostic heretics

Montanists.

of Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius-the Canon of the teachers belonging to school of Antioch-the Peshittathe Quinisext. Council-the effect of the Reformation.

INTRODUCTION.-The subject of this article is the formation of the NT, the gathering, into one, of the collection of books which we so name, to be the sacred books of the New Dispensation. These writings form the Canon of the NT (for the term Canon, its idea and history, see art. CANON). It is with the process which resulted in the recognition of a Canon that we are here concerned. The investigation and right conception of this history have proved, and are still, a very hard and complicated task. The evidence is to be gathered from early Christian literature; but the age and authenticity of many of its documents, especially for the two or three generations succeeding the apostles, which form the most important period of all, have been hotly contested; and, even apart from this, the evidence supplied by them is, from special causes (as we shall see), difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, some real progress has been made in the illumination of the subject. A common judgment has been attained, or there is an approximation to one, in regard to some of the most important of the documents concerned and as to the bearing of some portions of the evidence, on the part of many students whose doctrinal points of view are very diverse; and the important questions still at issue have been narrowed and cleared. It would hardly be possible now to maintain views of the formation of the Canon such as those of men so learned as Lardner (supplement to pt. ii. bk. i. of the Credibility, ch. iii. 2nd ed. p. 49) and Mosheim (Eccl. Hist. bk. i. pt. ii. ch. ii. § 16, i. p. 64 in Eng. tr. of 1863) in former times. It was a more gradual process than they imagined, and it had more than one stage. The student of the history of the Canon must endeavour to mark the stages and the epochs at which they were reached, to determine the greater or less rapidity of the movement towards the establishment of the Canon, to ascertain the causes which promoted or retarded it, and the considerations which were influential in bringing about the acceptance or rejection of -different writings.

A certain development of thought and feeling in respect to the books of NT must be acknowledged. But to say this is by no means inconsistent with belief in their authenticity as genuine products of the apostolic age. It required time, and the experience of needs which were not fully felt at once, for the Christian Church to perceive clearly what a treasure she possessed in these writings. And the most important question which has to be decided in regard to the history of the Canon is, Whether the development which can be traced was one which involved a misrepresentation of facts, or only an awakening to the real significance of facts which had long been known.

In judging of the evidence, it will be right to remember the conditions implied in the very supposition of such a growth as has just been indicated. Convictions which are more or less latent, which have not been formulated, exercise far less authority than those which have been definitely put forth and for some time accepted without question. So long as the belief of Christians in regard to the new Scriptures was of the former kind the signs of its existence might be somewhat obscure, and there might be more or less serious departures from it here and there, in spite of its being in reality widely diffused and well founded.

The special circumstances must also be borne in mind, which were of a nature to retard for a time the formation of a Canon of NT, and also to make the recognition accorded to the apostolic writings appear to us less decided than it was in reality.

(a) The fact that Christians already had a Biblethe OT-must first be noticed. In time, no doubt, this may have facilitated the reception of another body of Scriptures. For the idea of a Bible, a collection of inspired, authoritative writings, had been rendered familiar, and it was necessary only that it should be applied to the books which enshrined the New Revelation. But this could not be at once accomplished. Great as the veneration for the apostles was, there could not be the same feeling for new writings as for those which had long been hallowed. Moreover, in form the apostolic writings were different in many respects from those of the OT, and, in particular, they did not bear so plainly upon their very face a claim to inspiration as its prophetic and legislative books did. Besides all this, the OT itself largely supplied the place of Christian Scriptures in apostolic and sub-apostolic times. To an extent which we find hard to understand, it was used as a source of Christian instruction. The divine truths newly imparted and the actual facts of the life of Christ and founding of His kingdom were read between the lines of the ancient Scriptures (Lk 247.4445, Ac 835. 1823. 2 Ti 315, and last fragment of Melito, ap. Eus. HE iv. 26). The need was thus partially met which the apostolic writings could alone adequately satisfy. (b) Again, the gospel message and the new law had first been delivered by word of mouth, and there is good reason to believe that even the memory of the oral teaching of the apostles was for a time, in some measure, a rival of their own written testimony in the regard and affections of Christians.

A just and vivid sense of these peculiar conditions, and some others which will come before us in the course of our survey, is necessary, if we are to understand the phenomena aright, and to refrain from giving undue weight to objections which are founded on paucity of evidence. Proof, however, of a positive kind that, from the confines of the lifetime of the apostles, the writings of NT were known among Christians, can be found only in a full estimate of the facts as a whole, supplied by the documents not only of the one or two earliest but of subsequent generations. When the alleged indications of the use of NT writings at the former time are taken by themselves, they may be far from convincing; they may show little more than that it is a tenable assumption, that our Christian Scriptures, or the chief of them, were already in circulation. But when we advance a few years. we find them clearly occupying a position which they could not have attained at a bound, and which no other writings shared with them. And we are justified in inferring that the earlier signs referred to are not only possibly but-really traces of acquaintance with them. In this way we reach a highly probable conclusion, even when the facts directly connected with the reception of these writings are alone taken into account. It will be strongly confirmed if the belief (the grounds of which can barely be touched upon in this article) is well founded, that there was substantial continuity of life and organization in the Christian Church from the beginning till its history emerges into full light in the latter part of the 2nd cent., such as would afford a guarantee for the faithful preservation of traditions on important matters.

The history of the Canon of NT may be divided into the following periods :-A, the first, which is by far the most important, extends from the end of the apostolic age to the early years of the 3rd cent. (for convenience we may say to A.D. 220, which was about the time of the deaths of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hippolytus). At this latter epoch we see the greater part of the books of NT occupying the position in the Church

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 discussion of the claims of those not universally received; but there was much uncertainty still in regard to certain books. C. From A.D. 323 onwards, 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 formation 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.

The

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. 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 Tò evayyéλov 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 unquestionably were acquainted with several works of the

As

nature of Gospels continued so to express themselves. And there is a survival of it to this day in the titles of our Gospels-τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατά, the Gospel according to,' this or that evangelist. i. THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE, i.e. the generation immediately following that of the apostles. belonging to this time, we will take only the Ep. of Clement to the Corinthians, the Seven Epp. of Ignatius, in the short Greek or Vossian form, and the Ep. of Polycarp. Some critics of the highest repute would, besides, assign to it the recently recovered Didaché and the Ep. of Barnabas, and a few more would also include the Shepherd of Hermas. But in an inquiry of this kind it is better to understate than to overstate evidence. Moreover, the present writer is personally inclined to place the composition of these last three writings in the second quarter of the 2nd cent. And it will be very generally admitted now that the case for placing them earlier than this is far less strong than that for the others, and that they do not, by their authorship, create the same kind of link with the apostolic age. Those writings before mentioned may, indeed, with great confidence be declared to be the genuine works of the men with whose names they are connected. Two of the writers at least, and probably all three, had known apostles, and held positions of eminence in the Church at the close of the first and near the beginning of the 2nd cent. There are very strong reasons for believing that the Ep. written to the Church of Corinth in the name of that of Rome, which has from very early times been attributed to Clement, is really his work, and for referring it to the close of the reign of Domitian, c. A.D. 95 (see Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. i. p. 346 ff., and Harnack, Chronol. i. p. 251 ff.). Again, the genuineness of the Seven Epp. of Ignatius discovered by Voss in the Medicean MS has been firmly established by the labours of Zahn and Lightfoot. This is fully admitted by Harnack (Chronol. i. p. 381 ff.). Their exact date cannot be quite so clearly determined. Lightfoot supposes it to be c. A.D. 110. Harnack was a few years ago inclined to place them near to A.D. 140 (see Expos. for 1886, pp. 15-22); but he now speaks in a very hesitating manner (Chronol i. p. 395 f.). The only reason for questioning the genuineness of the Ep. of Polycarp falls to the ground when that of Epp. of Ignatius is admitted, and its date is fixed by a reference in it as only later by a few weeks than theirs.

(1) Evidence as to the use of the Gospels-Sayings of Christ are cited in the writings now before us, as spoken by Him, but not as from a written source or sources. From the first days of the Church the Lord's Words must have been treasured as Divine Oracles. And as a sense of their authority must have preceded their being committed to writing, so also after this it would naturally be independent of that of the record, and the habit of referring to them directly, without considering the intermediary through whom or which they were delivered, might continue. The facts just noticed in connexion with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are an illustration of this. Their usage is still that of St. Paul in 1 Co 710, or in the Address to the Elders at Miletus (Ac 2035). They may, in spite of this, have taken their quotations from documents, and those, too, our Gospels. It is a point not easy to decide. In the Ep. of Clem. sayings are quoted as the Lord's closely corresponding, indeed, in substance with such as are recorded in our Gospels, but which differ from them to a greater or less degree in form. It is to be observed, too, that Polycarp (c. ii.) quotes in part the same sayings as Clement in the former of these passages, with the same divergences from our

Gospels [μνημονεύοντες δὲ ὧν εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος διδάσκων· · Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· ἀφίετε καὶ ἀφεθήσεται ὑμῖν· ἐλεᾶτε, ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε· ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν· καὶ ὅτι ὁ Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ καὶ οἱ διωκόμενοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ']; while, to pass for a moment beyond our present period, the whole piece of Christ's teaching which occurs in Clem. Rom. c. xiii. is given in the same form by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 18). It has been argued that these peculiarities, recurring in more than one writer, point to a documentary source other than our Gospels. If, however, the passages in question are examined, it will be seen that they appear to have the character of summaries, and that their differences from the Gospels may well be accounted for as the effects of compression and of the combination of phrases derived from the parallel passages in our Gospels, or in documents which have been embodied in our Gospels. General considerations which have already occupied us have prepared us for this phenomenon. For such traits as cannot be explained in this way, and which ought not to be regarded as accidental variations, there would seem to be a sufficient explanation in the influence of Oral Tradition, which was doubtless still powerful in the Sub-apostolic Age. Further, the persistence of certain features, which has been noticed, in the quotations of sayings and collections of sayings, may reasonably be traced to catechetical instruction and the impressions left by it. Such compendia of precepts, from the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of our Lord's teaching, may well have been imprinted thus upon the memory of Christians generally, and consequently quoted by writers who were familiar with the Gospels, as Clem. Alex. was. In Polyc. vii. we have a clause of the Lord's Prayer, as given both in Mt and Lk, with the difference only that it is turned into the indirect form; also words spoken by our Lord in Gethsemane, exactly as in Mt and Mk. [dehoeσiv αἰτούμενοι τὸν παντεπόπτην θεὸν μὴ εἰσενεγκεῖν ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος· τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πрólνμον, ǹ dè σàpž do levýs' (cf. Mt 613 or Lk 114; Mt 2641 or Mk 1488)].

For further parallelisms with the language of the Gospels and for allusions to incidents in the life of Christ in the two writings so far considered, see among other passages-Clem. Rom. xvi. end (Mt 1129.30), xxiv. (Mt 133, Mk 43, Lk 85); Polyc. v. (Mk 935, Mt 2028), xii. (Mt 541).

Ignatius was led by his controversy with Docetism to dwell upon the facts of our Lord's human life and sufferings rather than upon His teaching; and the only saying of Christ which he expressly quotes is one asserting the verity of His corporeal nature after His resurrection [öre πpòs Tous Tepi Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς· · Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ lôETE ÖTI OVK eiμì daμóviov dowμarov' (Smyrn. iii.)]. The incident referred to seems to be that recorded in Lk 2436-39, where the words of our Lord are similar in substance and partly in form. According to Origen, however (de Princ. præf. 8), they were contained in The Preaching of Peter in the same form as in Ignatius. Eusebius, on the other hand (HE iii. 36), who notes the fact that Ignatius has the saying, declares that he does not know whence it was taken; while Jerome (de Vir. Illustr. 16) says that it occurred in the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews. It is possible that a writing which contained the saying may have existed in the time of Ignatius, and that he may have obtained it thence; but it is at least an equally probable supposition that he derived it from oral tradition; and that from the same source it passed into one or more Apocryphal Gospels. We shall have occasion to recur to the question of the use made of apocryphal | writings in the 2nd century.

There are in the Epp. of Ignatius several allusions to incidents in the life of Christ which are recorded in our Gospels as well as parallelisms of expression with them, and among these, in two places, some remarkable coincidences with the thought and language of Jn. See Eph. xiv. (Mt 1283, Lk 644); Trall. xi. (Mt 1513); Rom. vii. (Jn 419); Philad. vii. (Jn 38); Smyrn. i. (Mt 315 and other points); Smyrn. vi. (Mt 194); Polyc. ii. (Mt 1010). See also Magn. xi. and Trail. ix. In Philad. v. his language suggests the idea that he was thinking of the Gospel as embodied in a written form; for he speaks of it as something to which Christians could as it were turn, and refers in the same context to the prophets. At the same time a passage in c. viii. of the same Ep. seems to show the difference between the position which any written Gospels had so far attained and that of the OT (comp. Lightfoot, Epp. of Ignat. ad loc. and also ib. vol. i. p. 388).

(2) The evidence as to the use of other writings of NT at this time may be treated much more briefly.-St. Paul's first Ep. to the Corinthians is expressly referred to in the Ep. of Clement to the same Church (xlvii.), and St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians in that of Polycarp (xi.). Thus NT writings are actually mentioned in two of the cases in which it is most natural that they should be; these are exceptions which, if they do not explain, are consistent with, the habit of not quoting by name where there was not the same kind of reason for it. Coincidences of phrase with various NT Epp., so striking from their character or number as to leave no doubt whence they are derived, occur in the three writers under consideration in Clem. Rom. with He (xxxvi. and xliii.); in Polyc. with 1 P (i. ii. v. vii. viii. x.) and 1 Jn (vii.); in Ignat. with 1 Co (Ephes. xvi. xviii.) and with Eph (Polyc. v.). Indications more or less clear of a knowledge of other NT writings might be named, e.g. of 2 Co, Gal, and 1 and 2 Ti in Polycarp. All these facts, while interesting and important as regards the books of NT immediately concerned, also have a bearing on the question of the use of the Gospels. They show that absence of direct citation in this age can have little weight for proving want of knowledge. Further, the sign of acquaintance with 1 Jn in Ep. of Polyc. has significance in regard to the Gospel acc. to Jn also. On internal grounds there is strong reason for attributing these to the same author, and the circulation of the one cannot have been separated by any great interval from that of the other.

The signs of knowledge of the apostolic writings in Polycarp are, it may be observed in conclusión, remarkable, and far greater than in Clement or Ignatius, in spite of his Epistle being far shorter. This may be reasonably accounted for by the consideration that he was in all probability a much younger man, and that he had acquired familiarity with those writings from his youth.

ii. THE SECOND QUARTER of the SECOND CENTURY. (1) Use of the Gospels.-The so-called Ep. of Barnabas.-Critics have referred the composition of this work to various dates between A.D. 70 and 130. Though it contains references to contemporary events, they are obscure. To notice only some of the more recent views, Lightfoot (Clem. Rom. ii. p. 505 ff.) has explained the allusions in a way that would bring the time of composition within the reign of Vespasian, i.e. before A.D. 79. Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 307) has adopted Lightfoot's theory with some modification, but not so as to affect the date. Harnack, however, in his recent work, has made a very ingenious suggestion for overcoming some of the chief difficulties; and his view seems, on the whole, the most tenable.

According to him, the little treatise in its present form was produced in A.D. 130 or 131 (Chronol. i. p. 427).

This writing affords what appears to be the earliest instance of the citation from a book of NT as Scripture. The words woλλol kλntoi öλiyo de EKλEKTO are introduced (iv. end) with the formula is yeyρantai. These words are not known to occur except in Mt 2214. There are also several other indications in the Ep. of Barn. of acquaintance with that Gospel. The parallelisms with Mt's account of the Trial and Crucifixion of Our Lord are striking (vii.). Again, words found in Mt 913 (though also in Mk 217, Lk 582) are used in v. A saying of Christ is also quoted as such, which bears a resemblance to that in Mt 2016, though it is differently applied (vi. 13).

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Dates ranging from A.D. 90-165 have been assigned for the composition of this work, the recovery of which in our generation has created so much interest. Unhappily, the indications available for forming an opinion as to the date are almost entirely such as are connected with the state of Church organization and life reflected in it, and on the history of these very diverse views prevail. It must further be observed that it may have emanated from some portion of the Church where movement had been slow, or whose customs had always been peculiar. There are expressions in it which betoken the habits of a rural district. On the whole, it may be most prudent to take it as belonging to the period which we are now considering, while at the same time we forbear to treat it as illustrative of the mind and practice of the Church generally within any narrow limits of time. In respect to the use of the Gospels, it seems to represent a slight advance upon the Apostolic Fathers. There is language, more distinct than that of the passage of Ignatius above referred to, which suggests the idea that the Gospel existed in a written form (Did. xv. 3, 4—ws exere ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, and comp. viii. 2 and xi. 3). The citations are only of words of Christ, and introduced as what the Lord said; but they are more abundant, and, although not given entirely as in our Gospels, they appear on examination to be still more plainly combinations of phrases from both Mt and Lk. Such compilations there are at Did. i. 2-5 [Mt 227.39 (or Mk 1230. 31, or Lk 2027); Lk 628.32.33.35 (Mt 54446); Mt 539-42 and Lk 629.30; Mt 52]; and at Did. xvi. [Mt 2513, Lk 1235.40, Mt 2410. 11 etc. etc.]. The former of these is a collection of precepts on our duty to God and our neighbour, the latter on the duty of watching for the Coming of Christ. There are, besides, other citations or parallels at Did. vii. (Mt 2819), viii. 2 (Mt 6-13), ix. 5 (Mt 76), xiii. (Mt 1019).

The Shepherd of Hermas.-The Muratorian fragment on the Canon (c. A.D. 200, see below) contains a statement that the Shepherd was written during the episcopate of Pius (bishop of Rome, A.D. 140–155), by a brother of his named Hermas. Recent investigations have added to the importance of this statement, which could not in any case have been lightly set aside, for they have shown that it may probably have been taken from a list of bishops drawn up c. A.D. 170 in the time of Soter (Harnack, Chronol. i. p. 192). On the other hand, in the work itself (Vis. ii. 4. 3) there is a reference to Clement, which, if understood literally, must imply that he was still alive; and he died long before the beginning of the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 140). Zahn (Der Hirt des Hermas, p. 70 ff.) and Salmon (art. Herinas' in Dict. of Christian Biography), on the ground of this passage as well as of features in the work which they think point to an early age, suppose it to have been composed

c. A.D. 100. While Lightfoot and Westcott treat the allusion to Clement as part of the fictitious setting of the work, and rely on the testimony of the Muratorian fragment, Harnack endeavours to reconcile in a measure the two views. He supposes that the work, though all by one author, was not all composed at one time, and that it was finally put forth A.D. 140 (Chronol. i. p. 257 ff.). As the Shepherd is a collection of revelations and instructions given by an angelic guide, it would not have been in character that it should contain express quotations, and there are not any in it from OT any more than from NT. But parallels showing acquaintance with NT writings are not wanting. Sim. v. 2 appears to be an adaptation of the parable of the Vineyard (Mk 121ff.). In Sim. ix. 12 we are rather forcibly reminded of Jn 101 and 14o, in ix. 16 of Jn 35, and in ix. 24 of Jn 116.

The Fragments of Papias.-There cannot be any very serious differences of opinion as to the approximate time at which Papias put forth the work from which some few fragments have been preserved to us. He had conversed with men of an older generation than his own who could give first-hand information as to what the oral teaching of several of the apostles was (Euseb. HE iii. 39). Irenæus (adv. Hær. v. 33. 4) seems to have been mistaken in supposing that he had himself seen and heard John the Evangelist (Euseb. 1.c.); but he may have been a contemporary, if not an actual hearer, of Aristion and the Elder John,' disciples of the Lord' (ib.). He must therefore have been born before, most likely some few years before, the end of the 1st cent. The time when he had opportunities of collecting the information referred to may probably have been several years before he wrote the work of which Eusebius has given us an account, largely in Papias' own words. But at latest the publication of this work cannot have fallen much after A.D. 150, and may more reasonably be supposed to have taken place somewhat earlier. When, further, we consider the character of his work, we can have no hesitation in saying that his testimony (so far as its general effect is concerned) is to be connected with the first half of the century.

The title itself of his work, Λογίων κυριακών ŋynoes, Expositions of Dominical Oracles,' is interesting and important. In view of those habits of thought of the time upon which we have already commented, we may best take Dominical Oracles' to mean passages of Our Lord's teaching. These, as is clear from his own language in the portion of his prologue preserved to us by Eusebius, Papias took from some documentary source or sources; but for the illustration of them he availed himself of all that he had been able to glean from independent tradition. As Harnack observes, he distinguishes the matter orally delivered, even so far as it contained portions of evangelical history, in a marked manner from the matter which he expounds' (Chronol. i. 690, n. 1). This fact, then, that written records supplied the basis for his comment, or the pegs on which he hung the more or less trustworthy additional narratives or statements that he had collected, lends special interest to the inquiry whether he knew and used our Gospels or any of them.

We need not hesitate to claim his account, which he gives on the authority of the Elder'-apparently, from the context in Eusebius, the Elder John--of the composition of a Gospel by Mark, as referring to a work at least substantially the same as our Second Gospel. It has been urged, indeed, that the observation contained in this fragment, whether it is the Elder's or Papias' own, that Mark did not arrange his matter in order,' is not appropriate to our Mark, which is not less orderly in