Thoughts on Antiquity

This post is part 4a of my series on ancient canonical lists, and was longer in the making than I had anticipated. Job and family matters have unfortunately been pressing on my blogging time.

The canon of scripture is one of the most pervasive themes in the great history of the church that Eusebius of Caesarea assembled. It closely parallels another of his dearest themes, that of the apostolic succession. As Eusebius runs through the various churchmen whom he regards as standing in the tradition of the apostles, he frequently collects passages and snippets from those churchmen that give some idea of the personal canon of each. Indeed, we have already seen such a catalogue compiled by Eusebius on behalf of the great Alexandrian father Origen.

Eusebius neatly and helpfully summarizes his own personal canon in History of the Church 3.25.1-7. In this list he divides the books into four categories. This present post will deal mainly with the first two of those categories; the next post, part 4b, will deal mainly with the last two.

Eusebius writes:

Ευλογον δ ενταυθα γενομενους ανακεφαλαιωσασθαι τας δηλωθεισας της καινης διαθηκης γραφας.

At this point it seems reasonable to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have been cited.

Και δη τακτεον εν πρωτοις την αγιαν των ευαγγελιων τετρακτυν, οις επεται η των πραξεων των αποστολων γραφη. μετα δε ταυτην τας Παυλου καταλεκτεον επιστολας, αις εξης την φερομενην Ιωαννου προτεραν, και ομοιως την Πετρου κυρωτεον επιστολην. επι τουτοις τακτεον, ειγε φανειη, την αποκαλυψιν Ιωαννου, περι ης τα δοξαντα κατα καιρον εκθησομεθα. και ταυτα μεν εν ομολογουμενοις.

And indeed in the first places should the holy tetrad of the gospels be ordered, after which follows the writing of the Acts of the Apostles. And after this should be catalogued the epistles of Paul, to which follows the extant epistle of John, the former one, and likewise should be effected the epistle of Peter. After these should be ordered, if indeed it appears right, the apocalypse of John, about which the arguments shall be set out in time. And these are among the confessed [books].

Των δ αντιλεγομενων, γνωριμων δ ουν ομως τοις πολλοις, η λεγομενη Ιακωβου φερεται, και η Ιουδα, η τε Πετρου δευτερα επιστολη, και η ονομαζομενη δευτερα και τριτη Ιωαννου, ειτε του ευαγγελιστου τυγχανουσαι, ειτε και ετερου ομωνυμου εκεινω.

Of the disputed [books], and those nevertheless known to the many, the epistle called of James is extant, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and that named the second and third of John, whether these happen to be of the evangelist or even of another with the same name as his.

Εν τοις νοθοις κατατεταχθω και των Παυλου πραξεων η γραφη, ο τε λεγομενος ποιμην, και η αποκαλυψις Πετρου, και προς τουτοις η φερομενη Βαρναβα επιστολη, και των αποστολων αι λεγομεναι διδαχαι· ετι τε, ως εφην, η Ιωαννου αποκαλυψις, ει φανειη, ην τινες ως εφην αθετουσιν, ετεροι δε εγκρινουσι τοις ομολογουμενοις. ηδη δ εν τουτοις τινες και το καθ Εβραιους ευαγγελιον κατελεξαν, ω μαλιστα Εβραιων οι τον Χριστον παραδεξαμενοι χαιρουσι. ταυτα μεν παντα των αντιλεγομενων αν ειη.

Among the illegitimate [books] must be ordered the writing of the Acts of Paul, that called the Shepherd, and the apocalypse of Peter, and on top of these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and those called the teachings of the apostles, and yet, as I said, the apocalypse of John, if it appears right, which some, as I said, set aside, but others adjudge it among the confessed [books]. And some indeed catalogue also the gospel according to the Hebrews among these, in which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ especially rejoice. All these might be of the disputed [books].

Αναγκαιως δε και τουτων ομως τον καταλογον πεποιημεθα, διακριναντες τας τε κατα την εκκλησιαστικην παραδοσιν αληθεις και απλαστους και ανωμολογημενας γραφας, και τας αλλας παρα ταυτας, ουκ ενδιαθηκους μεν αλλα και αντιλεγομενας, ομως δε παρα πλειστοις των εκκλησιαστικων προφερομενας, ητοι ως Πετρου και Θωμα και Ματθια, η και τινων παρα τουτους αλλων ευαγγελια περιεχουσας, η ως Ανδρεου και Ιωαννου και των αλλων αποστολων πραξεις, ων ουδεν ουδαμως εν συγγραμματι των κατα διαδοχας εκκλησιαστικων τις ανηρ εις μνημην αγαγειν ηξιωσεν. πορρω δε που και ο της φρασεως παρα το ηθος το αποστολικον εναλλαττει χαρακτηρ, η τε γνωμη και η των εν αυτοις φερομενων προαιρεσις πλειστον οσον της αληθους ορθοδοξιας απαδουσα οτι δη αιρετικων ανδρων αναπλασματα τυγχανει, σαφως παριστησιν· οθεν ουδ εν νοθοις αυτα κατατακτεον, αλλ ως ατοπα παντη και δυσσεβη παραιτητεον.

But we have also necessarily made a catalogue of these likewise, judging between those writings which are, according to the ecclesiastical tradition, true and genuine and confessed and the others with these, not testamental but indeed disputed, but likewise available to most of the ecclesiastical men, either gospels held forth as of Peter or of Thomas or of Matthias, or also of certain others besides these, or the acts as of Andrew or of John and the other apostles, of which none of the ecclesiastical men in the succession has in any way seen fit to make mention in his writing. And moreover, somehow even the character of the phrasing differs from the apostolic style, and the opinion and tendency of those things extant in them is so very far from the true orthodoxy that it is indeed clear that they happen to be the forgeries of heretical men. They ought therefore not even to be ordered among the illegitimate [books], but shunned as altogether improper and irreligious.

It will be most convenient to break this catalogue down into its four parts and simply list the books in each.

Undisputed books (ομολογουμενοι):

Gospels.
Acts.
Epistles of Paul.
Epistle 1 of John.
Epistle 1 of Peter.
Apocalypse of John.

Disputed books (αντιλεγομενοι):

Epistle of James.
Epistle of Jude.
Epistle 2 of Peter.
Epistle 2 of John.
Epistle 3 of John.

Illegitimate books (νοθοι):

Acts of Paul.
Shepherd of Hermas.
Apocalypse of Peter.
Epistle of Barnabas.
Teachings of the Apostles.
Apocalypse of John.
Gospel of the Hebrews.

Spurious books:

Gospel of Peter.
Gospel of Thomas.
Gospel of Matthias.
Acts of Andrew.
Acts of John.

What a superbly textured glimpse into the state of canonical affairs early in century IV! This unique fourfold breakdown along a spectrum from more to less authoritative and accepted gives us a very clear picture of how the church at large treated these various texts. That Eusebius had his finger on the pulse of his time is clear. It is customary to say that Athanasius (whose list I will present as part of a future installment) was the first to compile a list that matches our own modern New Testament canon, but I think that Eusebius deserves at least an asterisk here; it turns out that the sum total of his first two categories (undisputed and disputed) is also cleanly identical to our own modern canon.*

* This statement is true only if Eusebius counted the epistle to the Hebrews among the Pauline epistles. But that this was indeed the case seems quite clear from the facts that (A) this epistle does not appear elsewhere on the list, (B) in History of the Church 3.3.4 Eusebius writes in his own words of the fourteen (not thirteen) Pauline epistles, and (C) in History of the Church 3.38.1-5 he seems to side with those fathers who opined that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew and Clement of Rome translated it into Greek.

The one little wrinkle, of course, is the famous double placement of the apocalypse of John; it makes the list twice, once among the undisputed books and again among the illegitimate books. Why would Eusebius have done this?

There can never be an absolute answer to this question, since of course nothing up front was cruelly forcing Eusebius into this course of action. In retrospect, however, it ought hypothetically to be possible to explain why he decided to list the apocalypse of John twice.

I note that Eusebius seems to have reserved the list of disputed books for those texts for which the earliest attestation was fairly late, usually late century II. The epistle of Jude is not cited by name earlier than either the Muratorian canon or Clement of Alexandria; that of James is not named until Origen. The second epistle of Peter, likewise, is not named until Origen, and then only to be recognized as a disputed work. As for the second and third epistles of John, the Muratorian canon mentions two Johannine epistles only (a mystery, to be sure), and Irenaeus is just as mysterious; in Against Heresies 3.16.5 he paraphrases 1 John 2.18-22 as from what he calls the epistle of John, but then in 3.16.8 he quotes 2 John [1.]7-8 as from the same epistle already mentioned (praedicta epistola) before quoting from 1 John 4.1-2, without dropping any hint that he has quoted from two different epistles of John.* Origen later lists both 2 John and 3 John as disputed books.

* Given that the Muratorian canon mentions only two Johannine epistles and Irenaeus refers to 1 and 2 John as if they were from the same epistle, it is worth thinking about the possibility that 1 and 2 John were combined in some circles and considered to be a single Johannine epistle while 3 John was considered a second Johannine epistle. This is not my preferred reconstruction, but the merging of these peculiar data from Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment does carry a certain appeal.

The apocalypse of John would seem out of place in this group of disputed books, for, as we shall see, it enjoys rather early attestation. It would thus fit in more properly with the books in the first category, the undisputed books, and indeed that is where Eusebius initially places it. The books in this esteemed category, while perhaps a mixed bag with respect to attestation if listed one by one, are more evenly attested in earliest church history when considered within the groups that Eusebius has given us.

For example, while it is true that, say, the gospel of Luke is not actually named very early (it is first named by Irenaeus), this text is nevertheless part of the fourfold gospel, of which Matthew and Mark are attested by name as early as Papias. Furthermore, Eusebius knew that Marcion had edited a version of Luke for his own purposes, and Eusebius would almost certainly have interpreted a reference such as the one found in Justin Martyr, Dialogue 103.8, as a direct quotation of Luke (Justin writes that according to the [apostolic] memoirs Jesus sweat great drops of blood, an incident found only in the most commonly received text of Luke 22.42-44). Given that Eusebius, like the rest of the fathers and nearly every modern commentator, knew that the same person who penned the third canonical gospel also composed the Acts of the Apostles, this text too would be an easy candidate for the undisputed category, despite its comparably late attestation by name (Irenaeus, I believe, is the first to quote from it by name; refer, for instance, to Against Heresies 3.13.3; 3.14.1). Not to mention that Papias refers to Justus called Barsabbas, whom Eusebius explicitly links to Acts 1.23 in History of the Church 3.39.9-10.

Likewise, not all of the epistles of Paul are attested very early, but, once we grant that some of them are attested as early as Ignatius (refer to Ephesians 12.2; Romans 4.3) and Clement of Rome (refer to 1 Clement 47.1), we have to admit that to consider all fourteen as genuinely Pauline, as Eusebius did, entails placing them all in the same category.

The gospel of John is not necessarily attested very early by name, but Eusebius would surely have interpreted a reference such as the one found in Justin Martyr, Apology 1.61.4-5, as a direct quotation of John (Justin affirms that Christ said that, unless one is born again, one will not enter the kingdom of heaven, a saying found only in John 3.3). As for 1 Peter and 1 John, Eusebius writes in History of the Church 3.39.17 that Papias used testimonies from these two epistles, giving the pair of them an extremely early attestation.

In short, each book in this first group is attested by the middle of century II if we consider each book with the broader group, if any, to which it belongs and if we look at things from the Eusebian point of view. I doubt that Eusebius exactly intended to draw a line of attestation somewhere after Justin Martyr and before Irenaeus, but that he was indeed concerned with early attestation is clear, for example, from History of the Church 3.3.5-7, in which he admits that some of the most ancient writers used (των παλαιτατων… συγγραφεων κεχρημενους τιμας) the Shepherd of Hermas.

The apocalypse of John is attested just as early as most of the texts in this first category. Justin Martyr writes in Dialogue with Trypho 81.4:

Και επειδη και παρ ημιν ανηρ τις ω ονομα Ιωαννης, εις των αποστολων του Χριστου, εν αποκαλυψει γενομενη αυτω χιλια ετη ποιησειν εν Ιερουσαλημ τους τω ημετερω Χριστω πιστευσαντας προεφητευσε, και μετα ταυτα την καθολικην και, συνελοντι φαναι, αιωνιαν ομοθυμαδον αμα παντων αναστασιν γενησεσθαι και κρισιν, οπερ και ο κυριος ημων ειπεν, οτι, Ουτε γαμησουσιν ουτε γαμηθησονται, αλλα ισαγγελοι εσονται, τεκνα του θεου της αναστασεως οντες.

And further, a certain man among us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, also prophesied in a revelation that came to him that those who have put faith in our Christ will do a thousand years in Jerusalem, and after these things the general and, to speak collectively, eternal resurrection and judgment of all will come about all together at once, which our Lord also said: They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be like the angels, being children of God, of the resurrection.

And Eusebius himself intimates in History of the Church 3.39.5-6 that Papias was intimately acquainted with the John who wrote the apocalypse and not with the John who wrote the gospel. Given the close association of both Papias and the apocalypse of John with chiliasm, it seems reasonable to suppose that Eusebius thought Papias knew the apocalypse. It also appears quite likely that Papias did cite the book explicitly, and Eusebius simply did not mention it in his works, since Andrew of Caesarea writes in the preface to his work On the Apocalypse:

Περι μεντοι του θεοπνευστου της βιβλου, περιττον μηκυνειν τον λογον ηγουμεθα, των μακαριων Γρηγοριου, φημι του θεολογου, και Κυριλλου, προσετι δε και των αρχαιοτερων Παπιου, Ειρηναιου, Μεθοδιου, και Ιππολυτου ταυτη προσμαρτυρουντων το αξιοπιστον.

Concerning, however, the divine inspiration of the book we consider it superfluous to lengthen the discussion, since the blessed Gregory, I speak of the theologian, and Cyril, and even yet the ancients, such as Papias, Methodius, and Hippolytus, all bear testimony as to its worthiness.

After both Papias and Justin, of course, Irenaeus and a whole line of chiliasts (Hippolytus, Methodius, Victorinus, and others) would embrace this mysterious book wholeheartedly. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we have noted that even the illustrious Origen, according to History of the Church 6.25.8, accepted the apocalypse of John. It is easy to see why Eusebius, an Origenist at heart, would have placed this book in his first category.

Eusebius, however, also knew that mighty patristic voices had contended against the book. He himself mentions Gaius of Rome in History of the Church 3.28.1-2:

Κατα τους δηλουμενους χρονους ετερας αιρεσεως αρχηγον γενεσθαι Κηρινθον παρειληφαμεν· Γαιος, ου φωνας ηδη προτερον παρατεθειμαι, εν τη φερομενη αυτου ζητησει ταυτα περι αυτου γραφει· Αλλα και Κηρινθος ο δι αποκαλυψεων ως υπο αποστολου μεγαλου γεγραμμενων τερατολογιας ημιν ως δι αγγελων αυτω δεδειγμενας ψευδομενος επεισαγει, λεγων μετα την αναστασιν επιγειον ειναι το βασιλειον του Χριστου και παλιν επιθυμιαις και ηδοναις εν Ιερουσαλημ την σαρκα πολιτευομενην δουλευειν. και εχθρος υπαρχων ταις γραφαις του θεου, αριθμον χιλιονταετιας εν γαμω εορτης, θελων πλαναν, λεγει γινεσθαι.

We have received the tradition that at the time under discussion Cerinthus founded another heresy. Gaius, whose words I have quoted before, in the inquiry attributed to him writes as follows about Cerinthus: Moreover, Cerinthus, who through revelations attributed to the writing of a great apostle lyingly introduces portents to us as though shown him by angels, and says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be on earth and that humanity living in Jerusalem will again be the slave of desire and pleasure. He is the enemy of the scriptures of God, and in his desire to deceive he says that the marriage feast will last a thousand years.

In History of the Church 7.25.1-27 he quotes the antichiliast Dionysius of Alexandria at length to the effect that the John who wrote the apocalypse was not the apostle John who wrote the gospel. In a study that in many ways anticipates modern literary criticism, Dionysius mounted a formidable argument for two authors named John based on differences in vocabulary and style, differences in authorial self-expression, the wide availability of the name John, the barbarisms in the apocalypse not shared by the gospel, and the tradition of two distinct tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John. The argument is well worth reading in its entirety, and I have recently made it available on my page on the apocalypse.

So Eusebius had a problem. On the one hand, the apocalypse enjoyed remarkably early attestation, like the books in his first category (and unlike the books in his second), but on the other hand quite a few ecclesiastical writers rejected it completely, like the books in his third category. His solution was to enlist the book in both relevant categories, each time with the qualifying phrase if it appears right (ει[γε] φανειη). Eusebius, always ecumenical in his approach, thus attempted to appease both sides of the raging debate.

In studying this unusual double entry of the apocalypse of John we have now had occasion to touch upon the attestation for all the books in the first two categories. There remain the last two categories, the illegitimate and the spurious, which I will handle in my next installment.