The Canon of Eusebius

Eusebius of Caesarea is commonly known as the “Father of Church History.” His famous ten-volume work, Church History, originally published in 311 ce, was the ﬁrst full sketch of the history of the church, from the days of Jesus down to Eusebius’s own time. As a result, Eusebius is an incomparable source for historians interested in the ﬁrst three centuries of Christianity. For not only does he narrate events that transpired during this period and discuss its key ﬁgures, but he also quotes extensively many of the primary texts that Christians had written. A number of these texts have otherwise been lost to history, so that when Eusebius quotes them at length and accurately (which he often does), he provides us with unparalleled access to the Christian literature of the period. Eusebius’s account is, of course, told from his own perspective, with his biases affecting both his selection of material and the spin that he puts on it. Moreover, on occasion Eusebius explicitly intervenes in his historical narrative to express his own understanding of the developments he describes. One place that he does so involves his discussion of the books that he considered to be canonical Scripture. The passage is important for showing that even by his time, some 200–250 years after the earliest surviving Christian writings, there were still vibrant debates over the contours of the canon, even within orthodox circles.1 Eusebius’s listing of books is somewhat complicated, as he indicates that the status of several books was still under dispute. In any event, he indicates that books making a claim to being canonical fall into four categories: (a) “acknowledged books,” that is, those accepted as canonical by all proto-orthodox churches, (b) “disputed books,” that is, those recognized by some churches but not others, (c) “spurious books,” that is, orthodox books that are in fact pseudonymous and so not to be accepted, and (d) rejected books, that is, heretical forgeries.

See further, Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 164–68; 172–76.

Translation by Bart D. Ehrman, based on the Greek text of Gustave Bardy, Eusèbe de Césareé, Histoire Ecclésiastique (SC, 41; Paris: Cerf, 1951).

337

338

Having reached this point, it is reasonable to summarize the writings already referred to as belonging to the New Testament. Among the ﬁrst books must be located the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul. Then to be conﬁrmed are the ﬁrst epistle bearing the name of John and likewise that of Peter. After these is to be placed, if it seems right, the Apocalypse of John; we will set forth other opinions about it at the appropriate time. These, then, are among the acknowledged books. But among the disputed books, which are nonetheless known by many, are found the epistle of James, as it is called, that of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and those called the second and third epistles of John, whether they come from the evangelist or from someone with the same name. Among those that are spurious are to be placed the Acts of Paul and the book called the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, and the book called Teachings [⫽ the Didache] of the Apostles, and, as I have said, the Apocalypse of John, if that seems right—a book that some reject but others judge to belong to the acknowledged books. But some people also number among these the Gospel accord-

CANONICAL LISTS

ing to the Hebrews, which is particularly celebrated among those who have accepted Christ from among the Hebrews. All these should be counted among the disputed books; but nonetheless we have felt compelled to make a list of them, distinguishing between writings that are acknowledged as true and genuine by the tradition of the church and those that are not—books that do not belong in the New Testament but are disputed, yet are known to the majority of church people. In this way we are able to know which are in that category and which are set forth by heretics in the names of the apostles, whether Gospels allegedly by Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and of some other than these, or Acts allegedly of Andrew, John, and other apostles. No one standing in the succession of the true churches ever thought it worthwhile to mention any of these in any of his treatises. And their literary character differs greatly from the style characteristically found in the apostolic writings; while the opinions they express and their choice of material clearly reveal that they are as different as possible from truly orthodox works, since they are, after all, fabrications of heretics. For that reason they should not be counted even among the spurious works, but are to be rejected in every way as absurd and godless. (Eusebius, Church History, 3. 25, 1–7)