HistoricalChristian.Faith

Eusebius of Caesarea on the Biblical Canon

Dates: c. 324 (Church History 3.25, in its final edition; Eusebius was present at Nicaea in 325; d. c. 339) · Wikipedia
Summary: Eusebius gives the most deliberate early sorting of the books: the accepted (homologoumena), the disputed-but-widely-recognized (antilegomena), and the rejected (notha) — and then, set apart below even the rejected, the apostolic-pseudonym gospels of the heretics. It is here that the backbone names of the New-Testament apocrypha appear together — "the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias" — branded "fictions of heretics" that "no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers" ever cited. His is the sharpest pre-Athanasian language of exclusion, and the source the popular Nicaea legend later distorts: writing on the eve of (and present at) the council, he records the canon as still disputed, not decreed.

Claims & evidence

The threefold sorting — accepted, disputed, rejected

Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. … These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John … Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles …

— Church History 3.25.1–4, trans. A. C. McGiffert (NPNF 2.1), historicalchristian.faith (also at New Advent).¹ Eusebius's catalogue is the most methodical of the early lists, ranking each book by its reception: the homologoumena universally owned, the antilegomena disputed yet read by many, the notha ("rejected" or spurious) used by some but outside the rule. This is the very passage the page returns to elsewhere as a contemporary's testimony that the canon was, in Eusebius's own day, still unsettled — not closed at Nicaea.

The heretics' apostolic-pseudonym gospels — Peter, Thomas, Matthias — cast aside below the rejected

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers—we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

— Church History 3.25.6–7, historicalchristian.faith (also at New Advent).² This is the backbone New-Testament-apocrypha-exclusion text: the apostolic-pseudonym gospels named together — Peter, Thomas, Matthias — and set, with the heretical Acts, into a class beneath even the rejected notha, "cast aside as absurd and impious." Two features carry the weight. First, the criterion is again reception and authorship: these are works "no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers" ever thought worth mentioning — exclusion by non-reception, sharpened by a charge of heretical forgery, not by a conciliar ban. Second, the title is bare: "the Gospel of Thomas" is named with no contents, so this notice cannot by itself decide whether the Gnostic sayings gospel or the Infancy text is in view (see the argument below).

Notes

• Already a contemporary witness against the Nicaea legend. This same chapter (3.25) is adduced across the page's Nicene-canon arguments: Eusebius, who was present at Nicaea in 325, records the canon as still disputed in his own day — direct evidence that the council promulgated no canon. See Did the Council of Nicaea fix the biblical canon? and The altar-ordeal miracle. This Timeline block records his canon-sorting; those argument pages weigh what the legend made of him.
• Non-reception, not destruction. Eusebius's verdict is that these books were never received and should be "cast aside" as worthless — a judgment of value and authenticity, not an order to gather and burn them. The gradual non-reception he describes is the documented history set against the popular "banned and burned" framing at Were the infancy gospels suppressed?
• An undescribed title names nothing. Like Origen's bare list, Eusebius's catalogue-name "Gospel of Thomas" gives no contents — which is why it is among the few early condemnations loose enough to admit the Infancy Gospel, yet proves nothing about it on its own. Where Eusebius's own sense is recoverable he brackets Thomas with the heretics' apostolic forgeries (Peter, Matthias), pointing to the Gnostic side: see the argument Which "Gospel of Thomas" did the Fathers condemn?
• "Rejected" vs. cast aside — a four-tier, not three-tier, map. The popular shorthand calls Eusebius's scheme "accepted / disputed / spurious," but he is careful to put the heretics' apostolic-pseudonym gospels a step lower than the notha: the Shepherd, Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter are "rejected" but orthodox and read by some; Peter, Thomas, and Matthias "are not to be placed even among the rejected writings." The infancy and apostolic-pseudonym gospels fall in this lowest class.

Sources