Whether there are some apocryphal books among the New Testament books.
Whether there are some apocryphal books among the New Testament books.
§ 241. Up to this point we have been speaking about the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament, both in general and in particular. Now it remains for us to speak about the books of the New Testament where, first of all, this question arises: Among the books contained in the biblical codex of the New Testament, must the same sort of difference be established, that some are called canonical and some apocryphal? At first glance there appears to be some disagreement on this question among those who “departed from the Roman Church” (as the Papists reproach us hatefully). But with the help of a distinction, we can reconcile this, as we shall see a little later. The authors of Histor. eccles. Magdeb., cent. 1, bk. 2, c. 4, col. 54, speak as follows about this matter:
During this century, some things were written by the churches and circulated in the name of the apostles or of their disciples. Some of these books were left in suspense for some time because of the doubts of some people but were later accepted into the number of the catholic writings. Some were completely rejected, however, as apocryphal. To the first group belong the letters of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
After he had listed the opinions of the ancients about those books that are considered apocryphal in the New Testament, Dr. Chemnitz adds (Exam. conc. Trid., part 1, De Scriptura, p. 92):
I have quoted these testimonies of the ancients not only so that a catalog of those writings of the New Testament that do not have sufficiently sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies of their authority may be known but also chiefly that the reasons could be pointed out why there was doubt about them: (1) Because among the ancients there were not found sufficiently sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies concerning the attestation of the first apostolic Church that these books had been approved by the apostles and commended to the Church. (2) Because it was not fully certain from the witness of the first and ancient Church whether these books had been written by those under whose names they were published, but they were judged to have been published by others under the names of the apostles. (3) Since some of the most ancient writers had ascribed some of these books to the apostles but others had contradicted that, this matter, as it was not indubitably certain, was left in doubt. You see, this whole matter depends on sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies of the first and ancient Church and, where these are lacking, the later Church. As it cannot make genuine books out of spurious ones, so also it cannot make certain writings out of doubtful ones without clear and firm proofs. In fact, Nicephorus, bk. 3, where he quotes from Eusebius the opinion of the early and ancient Church concerning the apocryphal books, adds that the Church has long ago received them as legitimate and testamentary. But he provides no reasons, no proofs, as to why one must depart from the witness of the early Church.
Dr. Hunnius, Disp. de Script., thesis 119: “The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, the Epistles of James and Jude, and Revelation are outside the canon and are reckoned among the apocryphal writings.” Thesis 120: “Nevertheless we admit that the apocryphal writings of the New Testament have merited the greater consent and approbation of the early Church than the apocryphal writings of the Old Testament.” Thesis 121: “Therefore most of the fathers who place some books of the Old Testament outside the canon nevertheless keep no New Testament book away from it. Rather, they all agree that they are canonical. The Council of Laodicea does the same thing.” Thesis 122: “We also shall not fight too hard with anyone concerning the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and Revelation.” Thesis 126: “Nevertheless one ought not ignore that there also was doubt about these books in the early Church, as Bellarmine himself admits, because suitable documentation was not at hand that would prove they were certainly made by those authors whose names they bore.”
In Contra anal. Gregor. de Valent., p. 478, Dr. Osiander approves the opinion of Eusebius who, in Hist., bk. 3, c. 22, creates three ranks of sacred books.
Those of the first rank are those that he says are legitimate, authentic, genuine, and known everywhere [in confesso]; that is, they are of indubitable authority by confession of all the churches, as are the writings of the evangelists and the Pauline Epistles. Next, he says there are some about which there is contradiction because from the testimony of the early Church their authors are not sufficiently evident, as are the Epistles of James, Jude, etc. These are called “hagiographa,” as well as “ecclesiastical.” Nevertheless these are not strong by themselves to confirm dogmas. In the third rank he places those that are corrupt and false.
Dr. Mentzer, Disp. Anti-Pistor. 1, thesis 26: “The ecclesiastical books of the New Testament in our churches have almost the same authority as the canonical books.” He also writes, Apolog. contra Pistor., p. 162: “We accept the books of the New Testament called ecclesiastical or apocryphal in such a way that we allow them to be included in the number of the canonical books and to have an authority equal to the rest, insofar as this relates to their power of proving [doctrines]. And it is not for any other reason that we add the word ‘almost,’ except that in the early Church some people spoke against those books for some time, as if it were not possible to be affirmed with certainty that they were written and published by certain people. In this part, then, we can agree easily with the moderate Papists.” Page 243: “Although we accept each and every one of these books and place them in the catalog of the books of the New Testament, we nevertheless make a distinction between those that all people have always accepted without any exception or doubt and those about which there was doubt for some time as to whether they are truly apostolic, and that some churches have spoken against. Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 18, agrees and cites Eusebius, Jerome, Erasmus, and Cajetan.” Page 251: “Pistorius says that we make all the books of the New Testament equal in truth, certainty, and authority. This I admit; nevertheless it is quite true that for some time there was doubt about some books in the early Church.”
Dr. Hafenreffer (Loci theol., c. de Script., p. 204) retains the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books of the New Testament and puts into the class of apocryphal books 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and Revelation. He adds, however:
Although these apocryphal books do not have canonical authority in passing judgment on dogmas, yet because they contain much that causes strengthening and edification, they can be read privately and publicly in the Church with utility and profit. And if we compare the apocryphal books with one another, those that are in the New Testament have greater authority than those in the Old. Especially the Epistle to the Hebrews (because of its elegant commentary on the Old Testament) and Revelation (because it is filled with prophecies about the kingdom of Christ and other prophecies and is replete with sure fulfillments) stand far ahead of the rest of the books of this class.
Dr. Schröder, De princ. fidei, c. 1, p. 146: “There are certain books of the New Testament that some people call apocryphal but for almost no other reason than that there was doubt about them. The doubt was not whether they were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit but whether the apostles to whom they are ascribed brought them to light.” Page 152:
The doubt was not so much about their best and greatest Author—namely, the Holy Spirit—as it was about their writers or administering authors. On the other hand, all the great, old fathers of the Church exalted the authority of these books highly against this doubt; these books enjoy an authority equal to the canonical books in the view of most. To be sure, in order for a book to be considered canonical, it is not a necessary requirement that its secondary author or writer be evident. It is enough for its primary Author or the one who dictates to be evident, who is the Holy Spirit; for the Books of Judges, Ruth, and Esther are canonical, though their authors are hidden.
Of the Calvinists, Whitaker writes thus concerning this subject (De Script. controv. 1, c. 16): “We, too, acknowledge without any exception the same books that the Papists establish as canonical books of the New Testament. Our church accepts all and only those books that the Council of Trent reckons as books of the New Testament.” And later: “We doubt the authority of no book that belongs to the New Testament and, in fact, no author thereof, except of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Whitaker again (Contr. Rainold.): “The entire Church rejects the apocryphal books of the Old Testament; at least some churches reject the apocryphal books of the New Testament, but the better churches have accepted them.”
Sohnius, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, p. 15: “The condition of books of the New Testament is double. There are some about whose authors there was never doubt in the ancient Church, but there are others about whose authors there was doubt at one time, though they were read publicly in the Church and have the authority of apostolic doctrine in the view of almost everyone. To this latter class belong the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, etc.”
Of the Photinians, Pisecius writes (Contra Campianum, p. 1): “I think that the theologians of our time act unjustly when they reject certain genuine writings of the apostles.”
§ 242. We will state our position on this matter with three aphorisms. (1) A distinction must certainly be established among the books that are contained in the biblical codex of the New Testament. After all, one cannot deny that some people in the early Church spoke against some of these books, as will appear from the specific consideration of each.
(2) Those books that are spoken against [
] by some are called “apocryphal” inappropriately. We prove this from three kinds of arguments: First, because in the primitive Church there was doubt not so much about their canonical authority as about the secondary author of those books. But those books whose authors are unknown are not appropriately called “apocryphal”; otherwise it would follow that some truly canonical books, namely, Judges, Ruth, Job, etc., are apocryphal because their authors are unknown. Gregory says it beautifully in his commentary on Job 10:
It is very much in vain to ask who wrote these things, because the Author of this book is faithfully believed to be the Holy Spirit. Therefore He who dictated these things to be written wrote them. If we were to pick up the letters of some great man and read his words and were to ask with what pen they were written, this would be utterly ridiculous, to be interested not in knowing the author of the letters or in understanding their meaning but in determining with what kind of pen their words were written.
Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20, § Quod autem:
A gloss in the canon Sancta Romana, dist. 15, says that those books are called “apocryphal” whose author is unknown. This, however, is not probable because then many sacred books would be apocryphal, such as the Books of Judges, Ruth, Job, etc., and many others whose authors are unknown. This, however, is averse to the Church’s manner of speaking. After all, who has ever heard that a canonical book was apocryphal?
Second, the authorship of those books was doubtful not to all the churches and teachers but only to some. Consequently, two points of obvious distinction can be noticed between the apocryphal books of the Old Testament and those that some call the apocryphal books of the New Testament. There was doubt in the Church about the authority of the former, but about the authors of the latter. The authority of the former was repudiated by the whole Church, but [only] some doubted about the authors of the latter.
Third, the fathers who acknowledge the apocryphal books of the Old Testament exclude no New Testament book from the canon. (Cf. the Council of Laodicea, canon 59; Origen, in Eusebius, bk. 6, c. 25; Athanasius, Synopsis; Jerome, Epistle ad Paulinam, etc.).
(3) For the sake of instruction, therefore, we can distinguish between canonical books of the New Testament of the first rank and of the second rank [primi et secundi ordinis]. Canonical books of the first rank are those about whose authors or authority there has never been any doubt in the Church but have always been considered canonical and divine by unanimous agreement. Such are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; Paul’s letter to the Romans, the two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; 1 Peter; and 1 John. Canonical books of the second rank are those about whose authorship some in the Church had doubts at some time. Such are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the letters of James and Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation.
For the sake of comparison, we can mention here the fact that in Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 3, Eusebius established three classes of books of the New Testament: (1) Some are genuine and doubtlessly canonical [
]; (2) some are spoken against by some people [
], and those we call “canonical books of the second rank”; (3) some are spoken against by everyone [
], and these we call “apocryphal.” Augustine, De doctr. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8: “The catechumen will maintain this method concerning the canonical writings: that he will prefer those that all the churches accept to those that some do not accept.”