THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS AND THE CANON
Of the books used in Christian Churches, and mentioned by name in the writings of the Christian Fathers of the Church during the first four centuries, at least seventy have entirely disappeared. Suppressed by bishops and emperors, destroyed by fanatics, and lost in various ways, they have left no traces, except an occasional quotation, behind them. The Gospels according to the Egyptians, according to the Hebrews, according to the Ebionites, of Jude, of Judas Iscariot, of Peter, of Andrew, of Barnabas, of Bartholomew, and according to the Twelve Apostles, and many other Gospels which were once in common use, but which were subsequently considered to be unorthodox, have disappeared. The same fate has befallen the Acts of Peter, of Thomas, of Andrew, of John, of Paul, the Travels of Peter, and other books purporting to relate the lives of apostles. Two epistles and a hymn attributed to Jesus himself have disappeared. The Book of James, the Revelation of St. Paul, the Revelation of St. Peter, and many other books which once ranked as equal to the books of our New Testament, have also ceased to exist.
Twenty-three books, at one time considered as genuine as any of our present New Testament books, after being in common use in Christian Churches for many generations, were subsequently excluded from the canon, but have survived, and can still be read by us. They throw considerable light upon the beliefs which were current among Christians in the second century and for some centuries after that. These are:-
1. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary.-This Gospel was used by Jerome as late as the fourth century. In some versions it was Gnostic in doctrine, and Jesus is not considered as being the Christ until after his baptism. Jesus is not described as of the line of David, but as a Levite through his mother, Mary. The usual version is devoted chiefly to the story of how Mary herself was born.
2. The Protevangelion, said to be written by James, first Bishop of Jerusalem, and "brother of the Lord Jesus."-According to this Gospel, Joseph was accused of corrupting Mary before his marriage, and both he and Mary were tried upon the charge and gave evidence about the miraculous birth.
3. The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.- Published at about the same time as that at which our present Gospels appeared. Gnostic in tendency, but made use of by Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others The Nestorians used this book until quite recent times. It may very probably have been founded upon the Gospel according to St. Thomas (see No. 4 below), in the same way as Matthew and Luke were founded on Mark. The twenty two chapters of which it is composed are crammed with accounts of marvels and miracles said to have been performed by Jesus as a child while on a visit to Egypt. He mixes up the dyes of a cloth dyer, and then by a miracle changes all the clothes to the colour desired by their owner. His father, Joseph the carpenter, saws off a board too short, and Jesus miraculously lengthens it again. He cures a newly-married man of impotence. He re-transforms a man who has by witchcraft been metamorphosed into a mule. He cures Judas Iscariot, when the latter is still a boy, of a devil who leaves him in the shape of a dog. Jesus and his schoolfellows make images of animals out of clay, and he brings all these animals to life. He is born in a cave, and while still in his cradle he announces that he is the Christ. He teaches his schoolmaster the real meaning and shape of the letters of the alphabet. His mother, Mary, performs miracles as well as himself.
4. Thomas' Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.- Only four chapters survive. Jesus performs some exceedingly ill-natured miracles.
5. The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa.-The first Epistle purports to be from Abgarus, inviting Jesus to visit him at Edessa in Mesopotamia, because the king has heard of the miracles which he performs. The second purports to be from Jesus, declining the invitation, but promising to send a disciple to cure the king of his illness "after my ascension." These Epistles are referred to as genuine by Eusebius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century. They were at one time used in England as genuine but uncanonical, and some distinguished British divines attempted to get them admitted to the Canon.
6. The Gospel of Nicodemus, or The Acts of Pontiffs Pilate.-Probably written towards the end of the second century, and certainly in common use at the end of the third century. It was frequently appealed to, as evidence, by Christians of the succeeding centuries. It purported to be part of the official records of Pilate, and was said to have been found among the Roman archives at Jerusalem. It is really, like many other writings both canonical and apocryphal, the pious fraud of a Christian writer, who hopes to convert the heathen by miraculous evidences of Christianity. Jesus is accused before Pontius Pilate of being born out of wedlock, and of being a conjurer or magician. Various witnesses testify to the miraculous cures which he has effected. Many dead saints arise from the grave at the hour of the crucifixion, and subsequently spend their time in offices of devotion. Two of them relate their experiences in Hell, and how they there met Adam and Isaiah. Jesus Christ himself visits Hell. Beelzebub, "the prince of Hell," upbraids Satan, "the keeper of the infernal regions" and "the author of death," for crucifying Jesus; and Jesus gives Beelzebub dominion over Satan (chap. xviii). Annas and Caiaphas tell Pilate that they had made a mistake in crucifying Jesus, and that they now know that he was the Christ and has risen from the dead.
The pictures, which were once very common in books of devotion and in churches, of the "Harrowing of Hell," all purported to portray the descent into Hell described in this Gospel. Jesus, leading Adam by the hand, and followed by "all the saints of God," leaves the dreadful place of torment; and Michael the Archangel waits to conduct the party to Paradise. The only two saints who were not of the party were Enoch and Elijah, who had ascended to heaven without first going to hell.
7. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans.
8. The Epistles of St. Paul to Seneca, and the replies of Seneca thereto.
9. The Acts of Paul and Thecla.
10. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
11. Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
12. General Epistle of Barnabas.
13. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.
14. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
15. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians.
16. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans.
17. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians.
18. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.
19. The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp.
20. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
21. The First Book (or Visions) of Hermas.-Frequently referred to by Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Athanasius, Tertullian, and other Christian writers.
22. The Second Book (or Commands) of Hermas.
23. The Third Book (or Similitudes) of Hermas.
Besides these there are eight other alleged Epistles of Ignatius, written respectively to the Philippians, Hero of Antioch, the Antiochians, the Tarsians, Mary of Cassobolita, the Apostle John (two epistles), and the Virgin Mary. All these are now generally admitted to be spurious, but were at one time accepted as genuine. And in addition to these and to many other Gospels, Epistles, Revelations, and Acts, there was a large quantity of literature, both patristic and gnostic, which dealt with doctrine. Most of this is now lost, and is known to us only by references and quotations made by the later Fathers. Much that remains is almost meaningless to men whose ideas are not cast in the metaphysical moulds of the second century. But these were the books used, as the Fathers have left on record, in the second-century Churches, many of them long before any mention of our present canonical works is made, unless the words of Papias, to which we have already referred, related to such works. Throughout the second century various lost works are frequently mentioned by name, whereas until nearly the end of it no reference save this doubtful one of Papias can be found to the Canonical Gospels.
During these first two centuries each Church exercised a free choice in the selection of the books which it used. Some Churches rejected the Old Testament, but most of them used these ancient Jewish books and regarded them alone as "Scripture." The Gospels and other Christian literature which they read were not considered to have authority as "Scripture," and it was not until towards the end of the second century that any attempt was made to draw up a list of such books and to invest it with authority as a "canon."
At that period no one Church had sufficient authority to enforce agreement upon such matters. The pious fictions about apostolic succession, and the consequent pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome, had not been invented; and the sect which afterwards called itself Catholic was not yet in a position to define orthodoxy, and to suppress other sects as heretics.
During the third and fourth centuries many canons were compiled, but none of them were either permanently or universally accepted. Of these by far the most important was that of St. Athanasius, drawn up early in the fourth century. Christianity had just become the established religion of the Roman Empire, and, though the final victory of the Athanasians over the Arians had not taken place and the exact form of Christianity which was to be called orthodox had not been settled, St. Athanasius was for the time being in chief favour with the as yet unbaptized Emperor. The curious transactions which brought about the triumph of Catholicism under the Emperor Constantine can be studied in the pages of Gibbon (" Decline and Fall," chaps. xx and xxi). They lie outside the scope of the present work, and at present we are concerned only with the Nicene Council, at which the Athanasian canon was decided upon.
Of this Council Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, declared that, with the exception of the Emperor himself and one other person, the three hundred assembled bishops were "a set of illiterate simple creatures, who understood nothing." However, whether these three hundred bishops and their as yet unbaptized patron and emperor were qualified by learning to distinguish the genuine from the spurious, or whether they were ignorant, does not seem to have much mattered, as questions about the dates and authorship of the books were regarded as subsidiary to questions about the orthodoxy of the doctrines to be found in them. It was these prelates-subject to every kind of motive, such as fear of being declared heretics, desire to agree with the powerful patriarch, anxiety to bring the lengthy proceedings to a close-who, by their votes, decided which books were to be called inspired; and it was the canon thus decided upon which became the basis of all subsequent canons, including our own.
The canon-makers were never concerned with questions about the authenticity of the books. "The Church has distinguished between ancient books which she decided were apocryphal and other early books which she pronounced to be inspired; but in making the decision she was always influenced, not by a critical examination of the authenticity or origin of the writings, but solely by the question of what support they gave to the orthodoxy of the moment. If the book accorded with her dogmas, it was said to be inspired; if it did not support them, it was destroyed or labelled apocryphal." The Church accepted these books because they told a story which she wished men to believe, and for no other reason. She rejected other books which earlier Christians had used because they gave versions of the story which she did not wish men to believe, and for no other reason. The newer books contained the newer doctrine-that current at the moment; the older books contained the old doctrine, in which men of the triumphant sect had ceased to believe.
These facts are now recognized by all theological students, even the most orthodox, and modern apologists are driven to the use of some very quaint arguments in defence of their theory that the Gospels are good evidence of facts. Few of the arguments one hears upon any subject are so strikingly a reversal of the advocate's own previous contentions, and so absolutely opposed to experience, as the one used by some of the orthodox to reconcile the lateness of date, which they have been driven to admit, with the doctrinal authority which they still wish to claim for these books. This is to the effect that the very lateness of a Gospel adds to its value; "for it is a paradox to maintain that the longer men thought about our Lord the less they understood him." "Certainly it has not been the verdict of Christian experience that the writings which were latest in date are furthest removed from the spirit of the master."
To a biographer who compares all the first-hand authorities, and studies contemporary evidence in the light of subsequent knowledge, such an argument might apply. But the Gospel narratives are presented to us as first-hand evidence-as, indeed, the only evidence of the facts which we are asked or ordered to accept. How, then, can the fact of their being late be accepted as an added value to their evidence? If it is found that the later the evidence the greater is its agreement with the orthodox conception of the facts, it is obvious that the evidence was founded on the doctrine, and not the doctrine on the evidence.
Doubtless many of the "apocryphal" Gospels were eventually so classed on grounds which were not doctrinal only. The events recorded in some of them must have been a little too fanciful and miraculous even for the miracle-loving Fathers of the third century. Tertullian, who boasted that he believed because it was impossible ("Certum est, quia impossibile"), must have realized that some stories related in the "apocryphal" Gospels were risible as well as impossible. Some of the stories, such as those of the descent of Jesus into hell, were retained, and eventually enshrined in the Creeds, though the only books which recorded them had been rejected as apocryphal; but the tendency among the better-educated Fathers must have been to reject the more fanciful accounts in favour of the more sober. Doctrinal considerations were undoubtedly the chief concern of the canon-makers-that is admitted by themselves; but it is highly probable that the derisive comments of the pagans influenced the Fathers in their choice of books which did not contain quite such a curious assortment of childish miracles as those recorded in "The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ."
The contents of the books which were eventually labelled "apocryphal" varied from the sublime to the ridiculous, in illustration of which statement two stories will now be quoted from the "Acts of Thomas" and the "Acts of John" respectively. The first story is told about the "Apostle Judas Thomas, or the Twin of Jesus," who goes to India as the first Christian missionary:-
"When Thomas arrives in India he is brought before the King, and, being questioned as to his knowledge of mason's and carpenter's work, professes great skill in either department. The King asks him if he can build him a palace. He replies that he can, and makes a plan which is approved of. He is then commissioned to build the palace, and is supplied abundantly with money for the work, which, however, he says he cannot begin until the winter months. The King thinks this strange, but, being convinced of his skill, acquiesces. When the King goes away Thomas, instead of building, employs himself in preaching the Gospel, and spends all the money on the poor. After a time the King sends to know how the work is going on. Thomas sends back word that the palace is finished all but the roof, for which he must have more money; and this is supplied accordingly, and is spent by Thomas on the widows and orphans as before. At length the King returns to the city, and when he makes inquiry about the palace he learns that Thomas has never done anything but go about preaching, giving alms to the poor, and healing diseases. He seemed to be a magician, yet he never took money for his cures; lived on bread and water, with salt, and had but one garment. The King, in great anger, sent for Thomas. 'Have you built me a palace?' 'Yes.' 'Let me see it.' 'Oh, you can't see it now, but you will see it when you go out of this world.'
Enraged by being thus mocked, the King committed Thomas to prison, until he could devise some terrible form of death for him. But that same night the King's brother died, and his soul was taken up by the angels to see all the heavenly habitations. They asked him in which he would like to dwell. But when he saw the palace which Thomas had built he desired to dwell in none but that. When he learned that it belonged to his brother, he begged and obtained that he might return to life in order that he might buy it from him. So, as they were putting the grave clothes on the body, it returned to life. He sent for the King, whose love for him he knew, and implored him to sell him the palace. But when the King learned the truth about it he refused to sell the mansion he hoped to inhabit himself, but consoled his brother with the promise that Thomas, who was still alive, should build him a better one. The two brothers then received instruction, and were baptized."
If that story were translated into the beautiful language employed by the authors of our Authorized Version of the New Testament, it would rank high as an example of religious literature; but, on the other hand, if it were incorporated in that collection of books it would lose in ethics what it gained in prose, as, instead of being regarded as an allegory, it would be related as a fact, and we should be bidden to believe in another resurrection story, as well as in a marble and gilt edifice raised on the floor of heaven.
The other story is told of John and some of his disciples journeying on some missionary work:-
"On their journey the party stopped at an uninhabited caravanserai They found there but one bare couch, and, having laid clothes on it, they made the Apostle lie on it, while the rest of the party laid themselves down to sleep on the floor. But John was troubled by a great multitude of bugs, until, after having tossed sleepless for half the night, he said to them, in the hearing of all: 'I say unto you, O ye bugs, be ye kindly considerate; leave your home for this night, and go to rest in a place which is far from the servant of God.' At this the disciples laughed, while the Apostle turned to sleep, and they conversed gently, so as not to disturb him. In the morning the first to awake went to the door, and they saw a great multitude of bugs standing. The rest collected to view, and at last St. John awoke and saw likewise. Then (mindful rather of his own grateful obligation to the bugs than of the comfort of the next succeeding traveller) he said: 'O ye bugs, since ye have been kind and have observed my charge, return to your place.' No sooner had he said this, and risen from the couch, than the bugs all in a run rushed from the door to the couch, climbed up the legs, and disappeared into the joinings. And John said: 'See how these creatures, having heard the voice of a man, have obeyed; but we, hearing the voice of God, neglect and disobey; and how long?"
The story will awake memories, perhaps tender, in the minds of all those who have suffered the hospitality of caravanserais, dak bungalows, and rest houses.
In the second, third, and fourth centuries the books containing these stories ranked equal to or above those now in the canon.
Successive generations of ecclesiastical authorities gradually weeded them out, and in the year 692 the Quinisextine Council formally laid down the final Catholic canon. Even after that date some Churches and some sects used other books and repudiated certain Canonical books; but when the Reformation took place the new Protestant Churches accepted, though not always without considerable demur, the established canon of the Catholic Church.
Our Church of England New Testament is, then, a collection of books selected by fallible men from about 150 books used by the Christians of the first few centuries of our era, and selected not because they were the oldest or the most authentic or the most reliable, but because they, better than the others, gave support to the doctrines in which these men believed. We must now examine how far even the books thus carefully chosen do, in fact, support the doctrinal edifice built by the Catholic Church and inherited by the various Protestant sects of our own day, and note in the materials used for that edifice any traces of doctrines derived from the more numerous books which were rejected.
Next: PART II CHAPTER I THE EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT