New Testament Comparison
New Testament Comparison
But let’s compare against the New Testament Books in more detail. The only New Testament canon list that could be from this period (given Gallagher and Meade’s dating ranges and list selection) is the Muratorian Fragment. Whatever support it provides would simultaneously apply to the Book of Wisdom, as discussed above. In fact, list-wise, the Book of Wisdom is in even better shape than some of the Gospels, as of the year 200—the Book of Wisdom is included on the same Muratorian list as Luke and John (Matthew and Mark are missing and only presumed to be listed) and also could have been included on Melito’s list as well. (And if we elevate Clement to the exalted status of “Canon List,” then Wisdom gets a mention there, along with many of the New Testament Books).
Susanna and Baruch are comparable to much of the New Testament, since they all have arguments (strong arguments, for all of these) to be implicitly on either Melito’s list or the Muratorian Fragment, respectively. In fact, the case for Susanna and Baruch is superior to the list-based case for Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, etc. (which Books are definitely not on the Fragment’s list).
The rest of the Apocrypha are, arguably, at the exact same point list-wise as Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, etc.—none of them were mentioned on any list prior to 200.
But these are just lists. Kruger (p. 269-273) details all the evidence we have for New Testament Books. Let’s see how a few of them stack up when compared to the Apocrypha:
The book of James … clearly did not enjoy the same popularity in the early church as the core New Testament books (like Paul’s epistles), as is evidenced by the paucity of explicit Patristic citations of the book. However, its impact can be seen more indirectly as it appears to have influenced a number of other early Christian writings, such as 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. In addition, James is cited by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it which is now lost, and it was recognized as canonical Scripture by Origen, who cites it frequently … Eusebius acknowledges that some had doubts about it, but counts it among the canonical books “known to most,” and the letter is fully received by Jerome, Augustine, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage. …
A “paucity of explicit Patristic citations of the book;” so, “influence” without actual citation is considered valid evidence of “impact” (and, thus, early acceptance). The writings of the Fathers showing such influence are 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, both of which show such influence from Apocrypha as well. 1 Clement references Wisdom, Sirach, Judith and Tobit. The Shepherd references Tobit and 2 Maccabees.[1]
Later, the first clear citations to the Book of James are from Irenaeus and Clement, exactly the same as for the Apocrypha. Irenaeus authenticated the Sacred Scriptures, as he had learned them from Polycarp, who learned them from John: the Fourfold Gospel, the Epistle of James, Susanna, Baruch, and Wisdom. Clement authenticated the Sacred Scriptures, as he had learned them from Tatian, who learned them from Justin Martyr: the Fourfold Gospel, the Epistle of James, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Everything else is in the “future” (meaning beyond our current reference date of 200 AD). But note the importance given to being “recognized as canonical Scripture by Origen, who cites it frequently.” That would be the same Origen who wrote a long letter explaining (in extensive detail) why Susanna was recognized by “every Church of Christ” as canonical Scripture.
In fact, the evidence for Susanna and Baruch surpass James in the early Church, since Eusebius acknowledges that some doubt the Epistle of James. Still, he accepts James as canonical because it is “known [as such] to most” (not all, just most)—a crucial standard to apply when we see that some Apocrypha are also doubted.
Note the importance that is attached to being received by Augustine and the councils of Hippo and Carthage, all of which accepted every single Apocrypha. On the other hand, Jerome only evidences the acceptance of Susanna and (sort of) Judith—but note that mention of Jerome is made in the exact same sentence that stresses that the acknowledgement that some had doubts is not what matters; what matters is that it is “known to most.”
Kruger says that the “impact [of James] can be seen more indirectly as it appears to have influenced …”—but, of course, opinions differ and not everyone will see such influence. In fact, it seems that Gallagher and Meade do not agree. They say that “There is little evidence for the use of James in the second century. Origen is the first early theologian to make clear use of the letter of James” (p. 272). So, the first clear use is by Origen, a third-century writer, and he would be making this first use of the Epistle of James a generation after the first citations were made to each of the Apocrypha.
Jude… we have good reason to think that this letter stems from apostolic circles and would therefore contain apostolic teaching. Like the book of James, Jude was also largely overlooked by many Patristic authors. Of course, as with many of these “disputed” books, the small size of the writing becomes a significant factor in why these books have received less attention. … Nevertheless, Jude’s reception is remarkably positive: it was included in our earliest canonical list (the Muratorian canon), Tertullian acknowledged it as apostolic Scripture, Clement of Alexandria clearly cited it and wrote a commentary on it, Origen received it as fully canonical, and Eusebius placed it firmly in the canonical Catholic Epistles as a book “used publicly with the rest in most churches.”
Notice that Irenaeus is not included; thus the earliest citations come later than some of the Apocrypha (Irenaeus is a little before Tertullian and Clement) and lack the short and direct line back to the Apostles that we get from Irenaeus (John to Polycarp to Irenaeus). Nevertheless, “we have good reason to think that this letter stems from apostolic circles and would therefore contain apostolic teaching.”
One ‘good reason’ presented by Kruger is that it is mentioned by the Muratorian Fragment—which lists the Book of Wisdom. Once again, we see the importance of citations from Clement, Origen’s views, and that “most churches” use it (which implies that some do not, but that is not by itself a reason for it to be excluded from the canon). New is Tertullian, who also cited to Tobit, Judith, Susanna, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 Maccabees.
Perhaps no book has had a more difficult journey into the canon than 2 Peter. … a number of early sources that may have known and used 2 Peter, such as 1 Clement (c. 96), which has several places of overlap (e.g., 23.3 [2 Pet. 3:41; 9.2 [2 Pet. 1:17); … In addition, Justin Martyr makes a striking allusion to 2 Peter 2:1 in his Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus appears to cite it, and Hippolytus also seems to show knowledge of it. Clement of Alexandria wrote a now-lost commentary on 2 Peter, Origen cited it six times and clearly received it as canonical Scripture, and Eusebius considered it to be part of the “disputed” books in the canon that were nevertheless known to most of the church. … Thus, even with its slow start, it is important to remember that 2 Peter still has significantly more support for its inclusion in the canon than the best of those [potential New Testament] books that have been rejected.
“Places of overlap,” “allusion,” “appears to cite to it,” and “shows knowledge of it”—i.e., comparable (and in some cases inferior) to the Apocrypha. We again see the importance of citation evidence (Origen cited to it six times (www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search says 42, including allusions), whereas Biblindex notes Origen as citing to Apocrypha 626 times. 1 Maccabees received the fewest (eight), Wisdom received 270, Sirach 130, etc.). And we see, again, that “disputes” are no blocker to canonicity. The importance of commentaries is again noted, and the exact same Hippolytus wrote one on Susanna, as did Origen, and (outside of our second-century focus) so will Jerome; others will write commentaries on Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, etc.[2]
But note that last sentence: “2 Peter still has significantly more support for its inclusion in the canon than the best of those [potential New Testament] books that have been rejected.” Whereas we find the Apocrypha are comparable to 2 Peter and, in many respects, have a superior case to be made.
As would be expected, 2 and 3 John are cited less frequently than 1 John, no doubt owing (in part) to their very small size. However, these two little letters have still left their mark on the historical record. Polycarp appears to know both 1 and 2 John,[3] and there are also reasons to think that Ignatius knew 2 John. By the end of the second century, our first canonical list, the Muratorian fragment, mentions at least two of the epistles of John (and possibly all three). Irenaeus received at least the first and second epistle, and Clement of Alexandria cited from 2 John and wrote commentaries on 2 and 3 John that are now lost. Hippolytus accepted at least 1 and 2 John (but is silent about 3 John), Cyprian was familiar with 2 John, and Dionysius of Alexandria mentions 2 and 3 John quite confidently as canonical Scripture. Although Origen recognized that some had doubts about 2 and 3 John, it appears most in his day regarded the two letters as genuine-including Origen himself. By the time we reach Eusebius in the fourth century, as noted above, 2 and 3 John have found a firm home as part of the seven “Catholic Epistles.”
So there is an ambiguous possible mention in the Muratorian Fragment that clearly mentions the Book of Wisdom; Irenaeus and Clement; and—after 200, not before—Hippolytus (who also accepted Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and Wisdom, and wrote a full commentary on Susanna), Cyprian (accepted Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Susanna, 1 and 2 Maccabees), and Dionysius of Alexandria (accepted Susanna and Tobit); Origen acknowledges doubts but regards it as canonical—and he saw all of the Apocrypha as canon as well.
For earlier Fathers, we see the importance of “appears to know” and “reasons to think he knew.” But also, we see Kruger noting individual Fathers who are citing to some of the Books but not others. Lack of citations by an individual Father does not imply that they did not accept a Book, though. They may have had other reasons for not citing to them (such as never having a need). In fact, an earlier footnote (#46) by Kruger discusses lack of citations:
The reasons a book was infrequently cited can be quite complex and are not always historically accessible to us. … The book should not be guilty until proven innocent. … simply because we do not know why it was rarely employed by early Christians.
Another footnote (#47) supports Gallagher and Meade’s rejection of Irenaeus’ alleged citation to James:
Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 176, calls this a “fairly clear quotation of James.” Likewise, Metzger includes James in the books that Irenaeus knew (The Canon of the New Testament, 154). In disagreement is Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone, 36.
Irenaeus is the first to give even a debatable citation to James, while simultaneously giving an extremely certain citation to Baruch—which leads us into the real canon debate, as it relates to the case for Christianity.
[1] I discuss 1 Clement elsewhere; the Shepherd references (1) the idea of a good angel on one shoulder and a bad angel on the other, which comes from Tobit 3:8-3:17 etc.; see The Shepherd Bk 2, Commandment 6, Chapter 2 (“Hear now, said he, in regard to faith. There are two angels with a man — one of righteousness, and the other of iniquity.” www.newadvent.org/fathers/02012.htm); and (2) the belief “that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing” (The Shepherd Bk2, First Commandment, www.newadvent.org/fathers/02012.htm) which alludes to 2 Maccabees 7:28 (look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo discusses the latter concept and where it comes from in more detail (it is not actually clear just from Genesis, and for what it is worth, the Jewish Study Bible interprets the beginning of Genesis as “When God began to create heaven and earth – the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water – “God said, “Let there be light”…”).
[2] The comparison with Apocrypha regarding commentaries is, perhaps, weaker for the New Testament Epistles than Kruger has been indicating. Several times now, he has relied on a Greek word that he takes to mean that Clement wrote a now-lost “commentary”—but two translations of Eusebius available online translate the same word as “abridged accounts” and “concise explanations”. See 6, 14, 1 at www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm and at https://archive.org/details/eusebius-ecclesiastical-history-loeb/page/47/mode/2up. So, these may not be real “line-by-line” Scripture commentaries—just summaries, which may not clearly indicate Scripture. No modern has ever seen them, and it depends on an apparently ambiguous translation, so who knows?
Whereas the commentaries on Susanna and Baruch are line-by-line/section-by-section Scripture commentaries, exactly as we moderns expect. The one by Hippolytus is online (www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm), as are the commentaries by Origen and Jerome (www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm—Jerome translates Origen’s and adds his comments on top of it). The commentary on Baruch (by Theodoret) is available at Amazon (www.a.co/d/1xe1eFf).
Ambrose’s commentary on Tobit (On Tobias) is a strange one to our way of thinking. Of its 91 sections, the first seven and last four discuss Tobit the most. The middle 80 consist of a long discussion of usury and related issues, since part of the story of Tobit involves money committed to others (See Tobit 4:1 etc.). It is available online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b109460&seq=1. A reader writing a review would describe it as a treatise on usury, but I viewed the beginning and the end as sufficiently commentary-esque to at least note it for our purposes.
Lastly, Cassiodorus (writing around 550 AD) says that the “priest Bellator stated that he himself undertook a commentary on this volume [the Book of Wisdom] in eight books and we keep this work together with his other shorter works.” The eight-book commentary is lost, and I am unsure of Bellator’s exact dates, but there was a Basilica built and named after someone of that name in “the late fourth or early fifth century,” so the commentary seems to have been written before 400 AD. If so, at eight volumes it would also seem to have been a line-by-line commentary. faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/inst-trans.html; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_site_of_Sbeitla.
[3] Polycarp “appears to know” 1 John, says Kruger, and that is crucial to the proof that 1 John is actually authentic Scripture. Of course, 1 John was also the Epistle quoted by CARM to argue that Polycarp’s/Tobit’s claim that “alms delivers from death” is contrary to Scripture (https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/errors-in-the-apocrypha/). In any event, Polycarp also “appears to know” Tobit as well, since he uses the exact same language and concept.
