Thoughts on Antiquity

Well, I tried to keep this post brief, but to no avail. I have therefore decided to divide this third installment into two sections. This will be part 3a (not counting the introduction) in my series on ancient Christian canonical lists. Part 1 was on the Marcionite canon. Part 2 was on the Muratorian canon.

I am cheating a little bit to smuggle the Origenic canon into this series, since we do not actually have a complete list of texts from the illustrious Alexandrian father. What we have instead is a list compiled by Eusebius of Caesarea about a century later. This artificial list runs as follows in History of the Church 6.25.3-14:

Ταυτα μεν ουν εν τω προειρημενω τιθησι συγγραμματι, εν δε τω πρωτω των εις το κατα Ματθαιον, τον εκκλησιαστικον φυλαττων κανονα, μονα τεσσαρα ειδεναι ευαγγελια μαρτυρεται, ωδε πως γραφων·

So these things he places in the aforementioned writing, but in the first of the [interpretations] on Matthew, protecting the ecclesiastical canon, he testifies that he knows only four gospels, writing something like this:

Ως εν παραδοσει μαθων περι των τεσσαρων ευαγγελιων, α και μονα αναντιρρητα εστιν εν τη υπο τον ουρανον εκκλησια του θεου, οτι πρωτον μεν γεγραπται το κατα τον ποτε τελωνην, υστερον δε αποστολον Ιησου Χριστου Ματθαιον, εκδεδωκοτα αυτο τοις απο Ιουδαισμου πιστευσασιν, γραμμασιν Εβραικοις συντεταγμενον.

As learned in tradition concerning the four gospels, which even alone are not spoken against in the church of God under heaven, that the first written that according to the one who was once a publican, but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for those from Judaism who had believed, ordered together in Hebrew letters.

Δευτερον δε το κατα Μαρκον, ως Πετρος υφηγησατο αυτω ποιησαντα ον και υιον εν τη καθολικη επιστολη δια τουτων ωμολογησεν φασκων· Ασπαζεται υμας Βαβυλωνι συνελεκτη και Μαρκος ο υιος μου.

And second that according to Mark, who made it as Peter led him, whom he confessed also as son in the catholic epistle, through these words: She who is in Babylon, elect with you, greets you, as well as Mark my son.

Και τριτον το κατα Λουκαν, το υπο Παυλου επαινουμενον ευαγγελιον τοις απο των εθνων πεποιηκοτα· επι πασιν το κατα Ιωαννην.

And third that according to Luke, the gospel praised by Paul, made for those from among the gentiles. After all of them, that according to John.

Και εν τω πεμπτω δε των εις το κατα Ιωαννην εξηγητικων ο αυτος ταυτα περι των επιστολων των αποστολων φησιν· Ο δε ικανωθεις διακονος γενεσθαι της καινης διαθηκης, ου γραμματος αλλα πνευματος, Παυλος, ο πεπληρωκως το ευαγγελιον απο Ιερουσαλημ και κυκλω μεχρι του Ιλλυρικου, ουδε πασαις εγραψεν αις εδιδαξεν εκκλησιαις, αλλα και αις εγραψεν ολιγους στιχους επιστειλεν.

And, in the fifth of his expositions on the one according to John, the same one says these things concerning the epistles of the apostles: But he who was made ready as a minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but rather of the spirit, Paul, who fulfilled the gospel from Jerusalem and in a circle until Illyricum, did not write to all the churches that he taught, but even sent few lines to those to which he did write.

Πετρος δε, εφ ω οικοδομειται η Χριστου εκκλησια, ης πυλαι Αιδου ου κατισχυσουσιν, μιαν επιστολην ομολογουμενην καταλελοιπεν, εστω δε και δευτεραν, αμφιβαλλεται γαρ.

And Peter, upon whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, has left behind one confessed epistle, and it may be also a second, for it is doubted.

Τι δει περι του αναπεσοντος επι το στηθος λεγειν του Ιησου, Ιωαννου, ος ευαγγελιον εν καταλελοιπεν;

Why must one speak concerning the one who reclined upon the breast of Jesus, John, who has left behind one gospel?

Ομολογων δυνασθαι τοσαυτα ποιησειν α ουδ ο κοσμος χωρησαι εδυνατο; εγραφεν δε και την αποκαλυψιν, κελευσθεις σιωπησαι και μη γραψαι τας των επτα βροντων φωνας. καταλελοιπεν και επιστολην πανυ ολιγων στιχων, εστω δε και δευτεραν και τριτην, επει ου παντες φασιν γνησιους ειναι ταυτας· πλην ουκ εισιν στιχων αμφοτεραι εκατον.

He confesses that he could have made so many [gospels] that the world could not make room for them. And he also wrote the apocalypse, having been commanded to be silent and not to write [what] the voices of the seven thunders [said]. He has also left behind an epistle of very few lines, and it may be also a second and a third, since not all say that these are genuine; but both of these [combined] are not even a hundred lines.

Ετι προς τουτοις περι της προς Εβραιους επιστολης εν ταις εις αυτην ομιλιαις ταυτα διαλαμβανει· Οτι ο χαρακτηρ της λεξεως της προς Εβραιους επιγεγραμμενης επιστολης ουκ εχει το εν λογω ιδιωτικον του αποστολου, ομολογησαντος εαυτον ιδιωτην ειναι τω λογω, τουτ εστιν τη φρασει, αλλ εστιν η επιστολη συνθεσει της λεξεως Ελληνικωτερα, πας ο επισταμενος κρινειν φρασεων διαφορας ομολογησαι αν.

In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the epistle to the Hebrews in his homilies upon it: That the character of the epistle entitled to the Hebrews is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself rude in speech, that is, in expression, but rather its diction is purer Greek, everyone who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

Παλιν τε αυ οτι τα νοηματα της επιστολης θαυμασια εστιν και ου δευτερα των αποστολικων ομολογουμενων γραμματων, και τουτο αν συμφησαι ειναι αληθες πας ο προσεχων τη αναγνωσει τη αποστολικη.

Again, that the thoughts of the epistle are marvellous, not even inferior to the confessed apostolic writings, everyone who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.

Τουτοις μεθ ετερα επιφερει λεγων· Εγω δε αοφαινομενος ειποιμ αν οτι τα μεν νοηματα του αποστολου εστιν, η δε φρασις και η συνθεσις απομνημονευσαντος τινος τα αποστολικα και ωσπερ σχολιογραφησαντος τινος τα ειρημενα υπο του διδασκαλου. ει τις ουν εκκλησια εχει ταυτην την επιστολην ως Παυλου, αυτη ευδοκιμειτω και επι τουτω· ου γαρ εικη οι αρχαιοι ανδρες ως Παυλου αυτην παραδεδωκασιν.

After other things he adds these, saying: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teachings and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as of Paul.

Τις δε ο γραψας την επιστολην, το μεν αληθες θεος οιδεν, η δε εις ημας φθασασα ιστορια υπο τινων μεν λεγοντων οτι Κλημης, ο γενομενος επισκοπος Ρωμαιων, εγραψεν την επιστολην, υπο τινων δε οτι Λουκας, ο γραψας το ευαγγελιον και τας πραξεις.

But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the gospel and the Acts, wrote it.

The immediate context of this list is the canonical list of Old Testament books in History of the Church 6.25.1-2. Origen listed twenty-two canonical books in his commentary on the Psalms, and Eusebius simply reproduced that list for us.

But it will be noticed that Eusebius has culled the elements of this New Testament list from three different Origenic works, to wit, the commentary on Matthew, the commentary on John, and the homilies on Hebrews. We cannot, therefore, read anything into the order of books presented, since Origen was not attempting to draw up an official canon, and we will likewise have to take care with those books that do not appear on this list.

In the spirit of what Eusebius has done in collecting Origenic comments on the New Testament canon, I venture to offer yet another Origenic comment from the prologue to his Homilies on Luke:

Ecclesia quator habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, aliud iuxta duodecim apostolos. ausus fuit et Basilides scribere evangelium et suo illud nomine titulare. multi conati sunt scribere, sed quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, e quibus super persona domini et salvatoris nostri proferenda sunt dogmata. scio quoddam evangelium quod apellatur secundum Thomam et iuxta Matthiam: et alia plurima legimus, ne quid ignorares videremur propter eos qui se putant aliquid scire si ista cognoverint.

The church has four gospels, heresies very many, of which one is written according to the Egyptians, another according to the twelve apostles. Even Basilides dared to write a gospel and to entitle it by his own name. Many have taken in hand to write, but four gospels only are approved, from which the dogmas about the person of our Lord and savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called according to Thomas, and one according to Matthias, and many others we read, lest we should be seen as ignorant on account of those who suppose they know something if they have knowledge of those.

(I should mention that a Greek fragment of this more complete Latin translation by Jerome exists; it differs in wording considerably, but both the Greek and the Latin list the same rejected books, which is what matters for our purposes here.)

This brief list is the flip side of a canonical catalogue; it names several works which, as opposed to the four gospels, are by no means to be accepted with the approved books of the catholic church. Attentive readers will recall that we found an earlier example of this kind of negative list in the last few lines of the Muratorian canon.

I mentioned that this installment of my series will be divided into two sections; in the present one, 3a, I will examine the passage that Eusebius gives us, the positive list of canonical works; in the second one, 3b, I will examine the passage from the homilies on Luke, the negative list of works to be rejected as heretical.

That the four gospels make the positive list should surprise absolutely no one, but I wish to examine some of the details that Origen provides as to their composition.

The gospel of Matthew he says was composed in Hebrew letters (γραμμασιν Εβραικοις συντεταγμενον). This tradition is at least as old as Papias, according to Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.116, citing the (unfortunately lost) Papian Exegesis of the Oracles of the Lord; Papias is probably in turn citing the elder John:

Ταυτα μεν ουν ιστορηται τω Παπια περι του Μαρκου· περι δε του Ματθαιου ταυτ ειρηται· Ματθαιος μεν ουν Εβραιδι διαλεκτω τα λογια συνεταξατο, ηρμηνευσεν δ αυτα ως ην δυνατος εκαστος.

These things therefore are recorded by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew he says these: Matthew therefore in the Hebrew dialect composed the oracles, and each one interpreted them as he was able.

Modern scholars have debated whether Papias (or John) means that Matthew actually wrote his gospel in Hebrew or whether he means that Matthew merely wrote in a Jewish manner. But the church fathers seem generally to side with the former option. Irenaeus, for instance, writes the following in Against Heresies 3.1.1 (Greek from Eusebius, History of the Church 5.8.2):

Ο μεν δη Ματθαιος εν τοις Εβραιοις τη ιδια αυτων διαλεκτω και γραφην εξηνεγκεν ευαγγελιου του Πετρου και του Παυλου εν Ρωμη ευαγγελιζομενων και θεμελιουντων την εκκλησιαν.

Ita Mattheus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua scripturam edidit evangelii cum Petrus et Paulus Romae evangelizarent et fundarent ecclesiam.

Indeed Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, also published a writing of the gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and founding the church.

Pantaenus, according to Eusebius in History of the Church 5.10.3, found Christians in India the predecessors of whom had received the gospel of Matthew, still written in Hebrew letters, from Bartholomew. Eusebius is writing here of Christian missionaries:

…ων εις γενομενος και ο Πανταινος, και εις Ινδους ελθειν λεγεται, ενθα λογος ευρειν αυτον προφθασαν την αυτου παρουσιαν το κατα Ματθαιον ευαγγελιον παρα τισιν αυτοθι τον Χριστον επεγνωκοσιν, οις Βαρθολομαιον των αποστολων ενα κηρυξαι αυτοις τε Εβραιων γραμμασι την του Ματθαιου καταλειψαι γραφην, ην και σωζεσθαι εις τον δηλουμενον χρονον.

…of whom one also was Pantaenus, and it is said that he went to the Indians, where word has it he found that the gospel according to Matthew had preceded him among some there who had known Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached and left them the writing of Matthew in letters of the Hebrews, which was even saved unto the time mentioned.

Ephraem the Syrian will later go so far as to say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, Mark in Latin, and Luke in Greek (text fortunately available online).

What Origen says about the gospel of Mark is likewise somewhat predictable, at least as part of a patristic process of bringing the second canonical gospel closer and closer to the apostle Peter himself. He writes that Mark wrote the gospel as Peter led him (ως Πετρος υφηγησατο αυτω). Papias, on the authority of the elder John, had written that Mark wrote the things that Peter had preached as he remembered them (ως απεμνημοσευσεν), according to Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15. Such a statement certainly does not make it sound as if Peter were standing over his shoulder while he wrote. Irenaeus even states in Against Heresies 3.1.1 that Mark transmitted his gospel after the exodus (μετα εξοδεν; post excessum) of Peter and Paul; the word exodus is usually taken as a euphemism for death (and the Latin word excessum here used to translate the original Greek was a rather frequent term for death in the Latin of the day). Irenaeus, like Papias, does not make it sound as if Peter was directly involved in the production of this gospel.

Clement of Alexandria, however, placed the penning of the gospel during the lifetime of Peter, according to Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.5-7. Even so, he admits that Peter did not actually approve the gospel: Επιγνοντα τον Πετρον προτρεπτικως μητε κωλυσαι μητε προτρεψασθαι (when Peter came to know, he neither directly prevented nor encouraged it). By the time we reach Origen, then, Mark is writing not only during the lifetime of Peter but also, apparently, by his leading. The relationship is now more direct than before, and it will eventually get even more direct than that in patristic lore. Eusebius himself, for example, writes in History of the Church 2.15.1 that Peter approved the gospel for reading in the churches. He gives both Clement of Alexandria and Papias of Hierapolis as his sources for this datum, but his more verbatim quotations elsewhere of these two fathers bely the force of his claim. Rather, the tradition has moved yet again in a more Petrine direction.

Origen also uses 1 Peter 5.13 to tie Peter and Mark together in Rome. According to Eusebius in History of the Church 2.15.2 both Clement and Papias (assuming that these two are the subject of the verb say, φασιν, in that Eusebian passage; it may rather be that the subject is, as frequently elsewhere, a generic they) did the same thing, referring to 1 Peter 5.13 in conjunction with the composition of the gospel of Mark. Perhaps this is at least partly what Eusebius means in 3.39.17 when he writes that Papias used testimonies from the epistle of Peter (κεχρηται… μαρτυριαις… απο της Πετρου).

Origen calls the gospel of Luke the gospel praised by Paul (το υπο Παυλου επαινουμενον ευαγγελιον), surely identifying the anonymous brother in 2 Corinthians 8.18 with Luke:

Συνεπεμψαμεν δε μετ αυτου τον αδελφον ου ο επαινος εν τω ευαγγελιω δια πασων των εκκλησιων.

And we have sent along with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is [spread] throughout all the churches.

Not many modern scholars, I suspect, would agree with this identification, at least not for the reason given, namely, that this brother was famous among the churches for having penned the third gospel. For one thing, the gospel of Luke is usually dated to after the death of Paul. For another, Paul never demonstrably uses the word gospel to mean a written biography of Jesus. But this identification was not uncommon amongst the later fathers. For example, chapter 15 of the longer recension of the Ignatian epistle to the Ephesians makes the link, as does Jerome in chapter 7 of On Famous Men. But Origen may well be the origin (pardon the pun) of this connection.

When Origen writes of John, the author of the fourth canonical gospel, as the one who reclined upon the breast (αναπεσοντος επι το στηθος) of Jesus, he is of course making a quite common identification between the apostle John and the beloved but nameless disciple of John 13.23. Irenaeus does the same in Against Heresies 3.1.1, as does Polycrates of Ephesus in the fragment of his writings preserved by Eusebius, History of the Church 3.31.1-3, and Jerome in his prologue to the four gospels. Other writers make the same identification using different beloved disciple passages in the gospel of John. The Monarchian prologue to John, for example, uses John 19.26-27.

Origen does not list the epistles of Paul individually in the snippets that Eusebius has assembled, but he does allude to 2 Corinthians 3.6 when he writes of Paul being made ready as a minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but rather of the spirit (ικανωθεις διακονος γενεσθαι της καινης διαθηκης, ου γραμματος αλλα πνευματος) and to Romans 15.19 when he writes of him who fulfilled the gospel from Jerusalem and in a circle until Illyricum (ο πεπληρωκως το ευαγγελιον απο Ιερουσαλημ και κυκλω μεχρι του Ιλλυρικου). Origen affirms that the set of churches to which Paul wrote epistles is not perfectly identical with the set of churches in which Paul had ministered (for example, Paul had not yet visited the Roman church when he wrote the epistle to the Romans; refer to Romans 15.22-24). He also affirms that Paul wrote few lines (εγραψεν ολιγους στιχους) to each church, not a surprising sentiment given the incredible mass of work that Origen himself published during his lifetime, very much of which has perished.

Origen, unlike the surprising Muratorian canon, openly admits that Peter left an epistle to posterity, then adds that there may be also a second, for it is doubted (εστω δε και δευτεραν, αμφιβαλλεται γαρ). I briefly reviewed the attestation for 1 Peter (in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria) in my piece on the Muratorian canon, but Origen appears to be the first to mention 2 Peter by name, though of course there are possible allusions to be found amongst earlier writers. (There is also a clear reference in the tenth of the dubious fragments of Hippolytus found in volume V of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.) And Origen mentions it only to question its authenticity. The wording, of course, implies that both classes of people, those who accept the epistle and those who reject it, already exist as Origen puts plume to parchment. We are left in the dark as to who exactly may belong to either class.

I wrote in my post on the Muratorian canon that its listing of the apocalypse of John was consonant with, but not probative of, its author having been a chiliast (a believer in the future earthly millennial reign of Jesus Christ). Origen is my ace in the hole against the notion that only a chiliast could have approved of the apocalypse of John, since Origen himself approved of the apocalypse, even considering it to have been written by the same John as penned the fourth canonical gospel, yet was by no means a chiliast. Rather, his interpretation of this mysterious book was allegorical and symbolic rather than literal.

He adds that one epistle of John is unquestioned, but two others, which combine to make no more than a hundred lines, are questioned. Since the two that together add up to so few lines must be what we call 2 and 3 John, the approved epistle must be 1 John. This division of potential authenticity at least makes more sense to me than the awkward arrangement that we find in the Muratorian canon, in which only two epistles are (mentioned and) approved.

Eusebius adds at this point several comments by Origen concerning the epistle to the Hebrews. Origen himself appears to side with those who doubt that Paul wrote it, but he also quite ecumenically embraces those who attribute it to Paul. His final verdict, that (only) God knows (θεος οιδεν) who wrote this epistle, is one of the most famous statements ever uttered on the matter, and possibly one of the most accurate.

Origen goes on to affirm that some think Clement of Rome wrote it, others that it was Luke, whom he pointedly identifies as the author both of the gospel and of the book of the acts of the apostles (a handy remark at this point for Eusebius, since he has cited nothing from Origen so far regarding the second volume of Luke). I cannot find any earlier patristic statement on the latter alternative, that Luke also penned Hebrews, but we have already encountered a father who probably at least suggested the former, that it was Clement. Recall that Dionysius bar Salibi wrote of the Roman Hippolytus:

Hippolytus says that, in writing to seven churches, John writes just as Paul wrote thirteen letters, but wrote them to seven churches. That to the Hebrews he does not judge to be of Paul, but perhaps of Clement.

I say that Hippolytus probably made this suggestion because, if indeed Hippolytus was known for attributing this epistle to Clement, it may be thought a little odd that Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, would write under codex 232 of his Bibliotheca:

Οτι Ιππολυτος και Ειρηναιος την προς Εβραιους επιστολην Παυλου ουκ εκεινου ειναι φασιν, Κλημης μεντοι και Ευσεβιος και πολυς αλλος των θεοφορων πατερων ομιλος ταις αλλαις συναριθμουσι ταυτην επιστολαις, και φασιν αυτην εκ της Εβραιδος μεταφρασαι τον ειρημενον Κλημεντα.

Hippolytus and Irenaeus say that the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews is not his, but Clement and Eusebius and many of the other theophoric fathers count this one together with the other epistles and say that the aforementioned Clement translated it from the Hebrew.

Why does Photius group Hippolytus with those who simply denied Pauline authorship? Why does he not place Hippolytus among those who put forward Clement? The answer may be that Photius intends to distinguish between actual authors, not between translators. What Hippolytus probably suggested is, not that Clement translated the epistle from Hebrew, but rather that he actually composed it. What stuck out for Photius, then, was that this hypothesis severed the Pauline connection, whereas those who said that Clement translated the epistle could still regard Paul as the author of the postulated Hebrew original.

Implications for attestation.

How does the positive Origenic canon affect modern investigations of attestation?

First, we notice that the fourfold gospel is still with us; it is in fact here to stay. No known orthodox writer after Gaius of Rome denies any of the canonical four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Origen is quite conscious of this universal approval, noting that these four alone are not doubted under heaven.

Second, the epistles of Paul are approved as a corpus.

Third, 1 Peter is approved, but it is Origen who mentions 2 Peter for the first time in history by name, only to note that it is doubted.

Fourth, we now have a nonchiliast approving of the apocalypse of John. Furthermore, Origen cleanly identifies the author of the gospel of John with the author of the apocalypse and the author of at least one of the epistles (1 John) that go by that name, and very possibly that of the other two (2 and 3 John), as well.

Fifth, the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews is a live issue, and is apparently being vigorously debated at this time.

Sixth, I ought to point out that the urge to define a canon is shared between east and west at this juncture. Marcion and the Muratorian canon are western representatives of the canonical process, while Origen, hailing from Alexandria, later a resident of Caesarea, is decidedly eastern (as is the man to whom we owe this Origenic canonical catena, Eusebius).

Next time I will turn to consider our second Origenic passage, the one from his homilies on Luke which lists gospels that are to be absolutely rejected.