Not only was history subordinated to dogma by the writers of the
gospel-narratives, but in the minds of the Fathers of the Church
who assisted in determining what writings should be considered
canonical, dogmatic prepossession went very much further than
critical acumen. Nor is this strange when we reflect that
critical discrimination in questions of literary authenticity is
one of the latest acquisitions of the cultivated human mind. In
the early ages of the Church the evidence of the genuineness of
any literary production was never weighed critically; writings
containing doctrines acceptable to the majority of Christians
were quoted as authoritative while writings which supplied no
dogmatic want were overlooked, or perhaps condemned as
apocryphal. A striking instance of this is furnished by the
fortunes of the Apocalypse. Although perhaps the best
authenticated work in the New Testament collection, its
millenarian doctrines caused it to become unpopular as the Church
gradually ceased to look for the speedy return of the Messiah,
and, accordingly, as the canon assumed a definite shape, it was
placed among the "Antilegomena," or doubtful books, and continued
to hold a precarious position until after the time of the
Protestant Reformation. On the other hand, the fourth gospel,
which was quite unknown and probably did not exist at the time of
the Quartodeciman controversy (A. D. 168), was accepted with
little hesitation, and at the beginning of the third century is
mentioned by Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, as the work of
the Apostle John. To this uncritical spirit, leading to the
neglect of such books as failed to answer the dogmatic
requirements of the Church, may probably be attributed the loss