HOME | contents | Didache | Clement | Barnabas | Hermas | Ignatius - Polycarp | conclusion
In our discussion of the New Testament canon (Chapter
1)
we observed that
several books now included in it were not included by many Christians before
the fourth century,
and that some of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers
were accepted as canonical, especially at Alexandria, at an earlier date.
This fact implies that at least for completeness' sake we should say something
about these writings when we deal with New Testament literature.
Furthermore,
it is likely that three of these writings are as early as many New Testament
documents.
These three are
This consists of several chapters of moral instruction, followed by a handbook
of liturgical and ministerial guidance and concluded by a brief apocalypse.
The moral instruction is based on Jewish models;
as are the prayers set forth
for use at the Eucharist.
The church situation is one in which itinerant
apostles and prophets are the leaders of the community, though bishops and
deacons are replacing them.
The Didache thus clearly reflects a form of Jewish
Christianity,
although the date of its composition is a matter of debate.
Some (especially J. P. Audet) have argued that it consists of two parts,
of which one refers to the oral gospel,
while the other refers to the written
Gospel of Matthew;
he dates both parts before the year 70.
More commonly
the document as a whole is placed twenty years later, though it is recognized
that it reflects earlier traditions.
A few scholars have set it at the end
of the second century, viewing it as a pseudo-primitive (perhaps Montanist
or anti-Montanist) work.
Probably it comes from a time well within the first
century.
top
This is a long treatise, which deals with the necessity for humility and
obedience to order and lawfully constituted authority.
At Corinth there have
been schismatic tendencies, which have resulted in the deposition of some
of the presbyters.
Writing in the name of the Roman community,
Clement not only uses Old Testament
examples, and analogies both Pauline and Stoic,
but speaks explicitly of
the succession of presbyter-bishops which has come down from the apostles.
His work is intended as a description and a defence of ecclesiastical discipline.
It probably comes from the last decade of the first century.
top
This is a treatise on the correct exegesis of the Old Testament, which must
be understood not in reference to Jews but as pointing towards Christ and
Christians.
Historical allusions to the rebuilding of the temple may point to a period
after 132,
although they may indicate earlier events. Use of the Gospel of Matthew as
"scripture" suggests a time not before about 90.
top
Another work widely accepted as scriptural in early times is the Shepherd of
Hermas,
an allegory in apocalyptic form,
containing five visions,
twelve commandments,
and ten "parables".
The main occasion of the work is reflected in Hermas's
insistence
that in the near future one, and only one, more opportunity will
be provided for post-baptismal repentance.
The agent of revelation, sometimes
an angel and sometimes the pre-existent Church,
tells Hermas to transmit
the content of the visions to two leaders of the Roman church (one named
Clement)
and to read it himself with "the elders who preside over the church".
Most of the work suggests a date early in the second century,
but the author
of the Muratorian fragment, in forbidding public reading of the book,
states
that Hermas wrote it while his brother Pius (mid-second century) was bishop
of Rome.
Perhaps the document was composed over a period of years.
top
Other writings of the Apostolic Fathers include
the seven letters written about 115 by Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch,
on his way through Asia Minor to martyrdom at Rome,
and the letter or letters of his contemporary Polycarp,
bishop of Smyrna, to the Philippians.
These documents, clearly related
to their second century circumstances, were apparently never regarded
as scripture.
The continuing authority of some of these documents can be seen from the
fact that the Codex Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, while the Codex
Alexandrinus contains the letter of Clement as well as part of a later homily
known traditionally as II Clement.
For Christian writers after Eusebius,
however, it was generally evident that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers
belonged to the documents of early church history, not to the New Testament
canon.
The Didache, out of date as the liturgy and ministry of the Church
developed, was rewritten and assimilated into later, larger documents of
the same kind (Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions).
The authentic letter
of Clement was gradually driven out of circulation by later documents ascribed
to him.
The "letter" of Barnabas lost favour because it was too obviously
a forgery.
Only Hermas continued to be popular, though not among theologians.
As a clear line was drawn between the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers,
the latter were often used as witnesses to early orthodoxy.
Unfortunately,
the letters of Ignatius gave support to the views of Monophysites and others
like them;
for this reason the genuine letters were generally supplanted
by a new collection of letters interpolated and forged.
The many theologians
who found history uninteresting soon utilized this collection.
Historically,
however, the authentic letters are highly significant
for the light they
shed on gentile Christianity at the beginning of the second century.
They reflect the Church's growing concern for unity and doctrinal orthodoxy
and, in the case of Ignatius, for the importance of the sacraments.
Does
this "development" represent decline or advance?
The answer to this question
cannot be given on historical grounds
but on the basis of a judgement as
to the whole sweep of church history.
To a considerable extent the language and thought of Ignatius seems to have
been influenced by the Fourth Evangelist, whose disciple (according to later
legend) he was.
On the other hand, Polycarp, whom tradition also called a
disciple of John,
betrays only the faintest trace of acquaintance with the
Fourth Gospel.
He is much closer to the Paul of the Pastoral Epistles;
indeed,
his (second) letter contains many parallels to the Pastorals.
These show
either that he knew them well (he is the first witness to their existence)
or, as some scholars have speculated, that he himself wrote them.
An alternative
to this hypothesis would be that the same unknown author wrote both the Pastorals
and the "second" letter to the Philippians. (By "second" letter we mean
Polycarp, Phil.1-12, which almost certainly was written later than Phil.13-14.
This point is worked out by P.N. Harrison, Polycarp's Two Epistles to
the Philippians [Cambridge,
1936] - a study of permanent value.)
top
The writings of the Apostolic Fathers thus reflect
many of the difficulties, which we have already encountered in dealing with
New Testament books.
Some ascriptions of authorship are clearly wrong, as
in the case of II Clement and Barnabas and, probably, the Didache.
Other
writings contain interpolations or, at any rate, were circulated both in
genuine versions and in versions containing additions.
They come from various
churches and reflect various points of view.
They also come from various
periods in the history of the Church.
As far as ecclesiastical authority
goes, the writings of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp stand on a level higher
than that of the other authors, though admittedly both the Didache and Barnabas
were ascribed to apostles.
The chief significance of all of them lies in
their reflection of the life and thought of the Church in the period soon
after the apostolic age.
If those scholars are right to conclude that in
the writings of the Apostolic Fathers there are practically no reflections
of the synoptic gospels, the Apostolic Fathers stand almost as close to the
earliest traditions about Jesus as the synoptic evangelists do.
This means
that as authorities for his words, if not for his deeds, they are almost
as valuable as the canonical writers.
The question then arises whether or
not historical proximity is as important as canonicity.
To answer this question
we should have to enter upon the difficult question of the relation of scripture
to tradition.
Would a saying of Jesus when reported by Clement be tradition,
while the same saying found in Matthew or Luke would be scripture?
We raise
these questions only for the sake of discussion.
An attempt to answer them lies beyond the scope of this book.
top