the evidence for the genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John is
even stronger than the evidence for the genuineness of James. Yet at a
time when the best Greek critics were entirely satisfied as to the
genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John, the Syrians did not recognize them.
The only reasonable explanation of this is the simplest explanation,
namely, that some Epistles were translated at a later date than others.
Among Syrian writers we find two distinct tendencies. Writers who were
entirely at home with Greek literature, and in communion with the
orthodox Greek Church, like St. Ephraim or St. John of Damascus, used
the same Catholic {220} Epistles as the Christians of Alexandria or
Jerusalem. On the other hand, Christians who were cut off by schism
from the main body of Christendom continued for centuries to use
exactly the same Canon of Scripture as that which had been employed by
their ancestors before the schism. Thus Ebed Jesu, Metropolitan of
Nisibis, and the last prelate of the Nestorian sect who wrote important
works in Syriac, died in A.D. 1318. But we find that he only uses the
three Catholic Epistles contained in the Peshitta Syriac version of the
New Testament, probably completed soon after A.D. 400.

If we pass from the extreme east to the extreme west of ancient
Christendom, we find ourselves confronted with similar but not
identical facts. We find that a superior degree of authority was
allowed to belong to 1 Peter and 1 John. There can be no doubt that in
all the great centres of Christian life outside Syria these two
Epistles were in the Canon by the year 200. The _Muratorian Fragment_,
written in Italy about A.D. 180, mentions two Epistles of St. John and
that of St. Jude. It contains no mention of 1 Peter, but there are
grounds for believing that there was a reference to it in the lost
portion which was devoted to Mark. It contains no mention of James,
though that Epistle seems to be quoted in the _Shepherd_ of Hermas,
written at Rome about A.D. 140. It was long before James was
universally regarded as part of the Canon. It is quoted as Scripture
by Origen of Alexandria early in the 3rd century, but a hundred years
later Eusebius says that it was disputed by a minority. It is accepted
by Eusebius himself. The very private character of 2 and 3 John
accounts for the slowness with which they won acceptance as part of the
word of God, yet 2 John is backed by the high authority of Irenaeus,
and both