Apostolic Fathers

“For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of man, but as what it really is, the word of God.”

— 1 Thessalonians 2:13

The Apostolic Fathers are the earliest generation of Christian leaders after the New Testament’s own authors, several of whom had personal contact with one or more of the apostles. Their surviving letters and one early church manual are the oldest Christian writings outside the New Testament, and they give the first evidence of how the apostles’ own writings were being read, valued, and in places already called “Scripture” within decades of the apostolic age. None of their own works, however, was itself received into the canon of Scripture.

Confessional Definition

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession never mentions any of these figures or their writings. Its chapter “Of the Holy Scriptures” names only the sixty-six canonical books as the church’s rule of faith and treats every other writing, however useful or however close to the apostles’ own time, as merely human: to be “no otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.”¹ The confession was not written with the Apostolic Fathers in view, but their writings fall under that same general principle: valuable early testimony, not an addition to Scripture.

Individual Figures and Writings

1 Clement

The letter known as 1 Clement, written from Rome around AD 95, urges the church at Corinth to “take up the epistle of that blessed apostle, Paul,” and refers elsewhere to the apostles as “the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church.”² Its author, likely a leader of the Roman church, assumes his readers already know 1 Corinthians well enough to argue from it, and alludes to several other Pauline letters besides.²

The Didache

The Didache, an early manual of church practice from around AD 100, introduces the Lord’s Prayer as something “the Lord commanded in his gospel,” in wording close to Matthew 6:9-13.² It also warns its readers not to “abandon the commandments of the Lord” or add to or take from them, deliberately echoing the language Deuteronomy 4:2 uses of the Mosaic law, now applied to the teaching of Jesus found in a written “gospel.”²

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote a series of letters around AD 110 while under guard on his way to martyrdom in Rome.³ Writing to the Ephesians, he speaks of Paul as one “who in every epistle makes mention of you in Christ Jesus,” assuming his readers know a collection of Paul’s letters extending beyond the one addressed to them.² He also refers repeatedly to the “decrees” and “ordinances” of “the apostles” in the plural, and in one letter answers an objection by appealing to what “is written” in “the gospel” alongside the Old Testament “archives,” suggesting he had a written Gospel text, not only oral preaching, in view.² Seven of his letters are generally received as genuine; John Gill, for instance, cited from all seven along with three further letters he regarded as spurious.⁴

Polycarp of Smyrna

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, wrote to the church at Philippi around AD 110. He introduces a combined quotation of Psalm 4:5 and Ephesians 4:26 with the words “as it is written in these Scriptures,” applying that term to Paul’s letter alongside the Old Testament.² He also alludes to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, and 1 and 2 Timothy.²

The Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas, a theological treatise from around AD 130, quotes “as it is written, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen,’” a line paralleled only in Matthew 22:14.² The introductory formula “it is written” was ordinarily reserved for Old Testament citations, which suggests its author was already prepared to treat a written Gospel text as Scripture alongside the Old Testament.²

Papias of Hierapolis

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, wrote around AD 125 but reports traditions he had received earlier, around AD 90-100, from “the Elder,” a disciple and eyewitness of Jesus.² Papias preserves the earliest account of how two of the Gospels were written: “Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered,” while “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”² His testimony ties Mark’s Gospel to the authority of the apostle Peter himself.²

Significance for the Canon of Scripture

Eusebius later sorted early Christian writings into four categories: books recognized by the whole church, books disputed by some but received by most, books judged orthodox and useful but not canonical, and books judged heretical outright.⁵ Several Apostolic Fathers writings, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas, fell into the third category: read approvingly in some churches, yet never treated as Scripture on a par with the apostles’ own writings.⁵

That distinction explains the Apostolic Fathers’ place in the history of the canon. The same authors who valued, and in places already called, Paul’s letters or a written Gospel “Scripture” never claimed that status for their own writings. Their letters and manuals were excluded from the canon not because they were judged unorthodox, but because they lacked the one thing the New Testament writings had: apostolic origin.⁵

Related Doctrines

References

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), chap. 1, “Of the Holy Scriptures,” para. 3. ↩
Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), chap. 6, “The Corporate Reception of the Canon: The Emergence of a Canonical Core.” ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³
Ronald E. Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine: Introducing the Essentials of the Ancient Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), chap. 12, “I Will Build My Church,” 129-142. ↩
Steven Tshombe Godet, “John Gill: Patristic Scholar,” in “The Trinitarian Theology of John Gill (1697-1771): Context, Sources, and Controversy” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015), 122-180. ↩
Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), chap. 8, “Problem Books and Canonical Boundaries.” ↩ ↩² ↩³