--and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:
2 Peter 3:2
"In 1873 Philotheos Bryennios, at that time head master of the higher Greek school at Constantinople, but now metropolitan at Nicomedia, discovered a collection of manuscripts in the library of the
“Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulcher” at Constantinople.
"In 1873 Philotheos Bryennios, at that time head master of the higher Greek school at Constantinople, but now metropolitan at Nicomedia, discovered a collection of manuscripts in the library of the
The collection was bound in one volume, and was all written by the same hand.
It bore the significant signature, “Leon, notary and sinner,” and the Greek date 6564, which equals 1056 AD.
The manuscripts that formed the remainder of the collection, are the following: “Synopsis of the Old and New Testaments,” by St. Chrysostom; “The Epistle of Barnabas;” “The Two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians;” “The Epistle of Mary of Cassoboli to Ignatius;” “Twelve Epistles of Ignatius.”
Q: The question which would naturally arise is, “Why should we take this document as an exponent of the belief and teaching of the apostles, rather than the genuine writings of the apostles?”
Q: The question which would naturally arise is, “Why should we take this document as an exponent of the belief and teaching of the apostles, rather than the genuine writings of the apostles?”
A: The only possible answer is, “We should not.”
There is no more thorough student, and none better acquainted with Patristic literature, than Professor Harnack, of Berlin.
Says Harnack: "One investigator puts the newly discovered writing before the Pauline letters, or even before the Council of the Apostles (Sabatier); the second, in the name of Paul; the third, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem (Bestinann); the fourth, in the last decades of the first century (an idea that finds very much favor); the fifth, in
the days of Trajan (also a favorite idea); the sixth, in the days of Bar-cochba; the seventh, in the time of Antonines; the eighth, about the time of Commodus; the ninth, in the third tury; the tenth, in the fourth century; and there are some who favor the fifth or a later century. So much in reference to the time of composition. In other points matters stand no better.
There is no more thorough student, and none better acquainted with Patristic literature, than Professor Harnack, of Berlin.
Says Harnack: "One investigator puts the newly discovered writing before the Pauline letters, or even before the Council of the Apostles (Sabatier); the second, in the name of Paul; the third, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem (Bestinann); the fourth, in the last decades of the first century (an idea that finds very much favor); the fifth, in
On the history of its transmission, one says that it is the book known to the Fathers from the days of Clement; others deny this; a third party seeks a middle path.
In regard to the character of the book, some claim that it is well arranged, others that it is poorly arranged; some that in parts it is well arranged, and in parts poorly arranged; some that the skill of the author must be admired; others that the author has no idea of the literary arts.
In regard to the standpoint of the author, some claim that it is primitive apostolic from the view of the Jewish-Christians; others that it is a post-apostolic and Jewish-Christian; others, anti-Pauline; others, that it is strongly influenced by Paul; others, that it is Saddusaic; others, vulgar, heathenish; others, dangerously Ebionitic; others, Marcionitic; others, Montanistic; others, Theodotian; others, quite moralizing; others, encratistic; others, thoroughly Byzantine. Then some regard it as setting forth the Apostolic, the Presbyterian, the Episcopal, or no system of church government."
We see no reason for regarding it any more highly than the matter ascribed to Barnabas, Hermas, and Clement, or the “trash” attributed to Ignatius."
In regard to the character of the book, some claim that it is well arranged, others that it is poorly arranged; some that in parts it is well arranged, and in parts poorly arranged; some that the skill of the author must be admired; others that the author has no idea of the literary arts.
In regard to the standpoint of the author, some claim that it is primitive apostolic from the view of the Jewish-Christians; others that it is a post-apostolic and Jewish-Christian; others, anti-Pauline; others, that it is strongly influenced by Paul; others, that it is Saddusaic; others, vulgar, heathenish; others, dangerously Ebionitic; others, Marcionitic; others, Montanistic; others, Theodotian; others, quite moralizing; others, encratistic; others, thoroughly Byzantine. Then some regard it as setting forth the Apostolic, the Presbyterian, the Episcopal, or no system of church government."
We see no reason for regarding it any more highly than the matter ascribed to Barnabas, Hermas, and Clement, or the “trash” attributed to Ignatius."
E.J. Waggoner
