Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure, Ruhan, there were still disputes about a few books here and there, but most of the canonical list was settled in the wake of the Marcionite controversy.

That's why I said "substantially completed".

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Aleph and B represent a 4th century Egyptian (pre-Byzantine) text. They are certainly not the 'original text'.

In fact, I believe that the Byzantine text is closer to the original.

This is what Carrier says,

And, yes, IMO the Muratorian Canon does belong to the 2nd century.

Yuri.

James Madison

Ruhan:

If I follow Roger's thought process correctly, and I most certainly cannot claim to speak for the man, but looking at the long prose you provide it must be admitted this is not Eusebius " creating a canon" at all.

It appears Eusebius is merely mentioning books either already known but disputed, those in which a consensus already exists, and those which are repudiated as heretical. While he does assert those texts considered heretical are forgeries and do not belong with the other books he mentioned, it is important to observe the preceding books he cites were, according to his own prose, already widely agreed upon (in other words the "canon" if you want to call it was already in existence) and he was simply referring to, citing, or deferring to this already existing "canon".

The language in the prose which best supports this supposition is, "Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical [lit., en-testamented], but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] Eusebius is indicating he is citing writings which are accepted according to the "traditions" of the church as true and genuine. In other words, Eusebius is not creating a "canon" but deferring to or citing one already in existence by the traditions of the church. Eusebius is merely identifying "books" which are in a canon already in existence in accordance to the traditions of the "church".

Eusebius makes no remarks as to the validity of those books already accepted by church tradition and does not attempt to assert those books characterized as spurious are fraudulent or heretical and consequently, have no place in the canon which, according to Eusebius, the church tradition had compiled. He is rather neutral in regards to the spurious books and their inclusion. He makes remarks such as, "And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books. Well this is an odd position for one to take in attempting to "create" a canon. In creating a "canon" one is going to state the reasons why some book is affirmatively canonical or non-canonical. They are not likely to take a neutral stance in regards to some book as Eusebius does here. Here, however, Eusebius is leaving it up someone else to include this book or exclude it when he says, " if it seem right in regards to the Revelation book of John. This is not language consistent with someone whose goal is to create a "canon".

He uses more language which suggests he is not at all creating any "canon". (6) Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them He states here he is unequivocally making a "catalogue" as opposed to a "canon". He is not seeking to exclude these books and classify them as frauds or heretical, something we would expect from an individual with an agenda for creating a "canon". He is here to merely "catalogue" these books and does not take an affirmative position as to their acceptance or rejection but leaves this task to someone else, as he did with the Revelation book of John. He is doing the same with these books as he did with John, leaving the task to accept or reject these books to someone else.

He explicitly tells us his goal was not to create any canon. Rather, he instructs us he was deferring to an already existing canon compiled by the traditions of the church and the spurious and disputed books for what purpose? It cannot be to create a canon because he is already citing to one and does not take any position as to the validity of the spurious and disputed books, as we'd expect from someone with the goal of creating a canon. He tell us his purpose.

Eusebius purpose was to "catalogue" the books which are found in an alredy existing canon, note the spurious or disputed books which may or may not be valid, for the purpose of, "And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles.

I think Pearse is right after carefully scrutinizing the language of Eusebius' prose. It does not appear Eusebius is creating any canon at all.

Ruhan

James,

Eusebius outlined three categories of books, those that are not disputed (belong in the canon), those who are disputed by some church fathers (possibly should be included in a canon) and lastly those books that are disputed by most or all of the church fathers (should be excluded).

I agree that he is referring to a larger canon that is already in existence, however he is in essence passing judgement on this canon. If this larger canon was indeed the canon of the day and if Eusebius simply categorized it, why did he only include the books found in the first category in his decorated manuscripts produced for Constantine? A canon by any other name...

Regards,

Ruhan

James Madison

Ruhan:

Good question but this would not be an instance where he "created a canon" at all. The books he submitted to Constantine, the books you assert which are within the first category of according to the tradition of the Church, were already in existence as a "canon" before Eusebius passed them on to Constantine. In other words, Eusebius is simply passing on a pre-existing "canon" as opposed to creating one and then passing it on.

Now, if your assumption is true, Eusebius did not provide to Constantine ANY disputed or spurious book, then what can we conclude from this fact? We cannot conclude he was "creating a canon" because the canon which excluded these books was already in existence and established by the "traditions of the church." The reason Eusebius did not include the spurious or disputed books is because they were not determined by the Church and tradition to be "canonical". Which is to say, Eusebius was merely providing Constantine with the canonical books as arrived to by church tradition and excluded those spurious/dispute books because church tradition had yet to determine them as "canonical".

Consequently, Eusebius was not "Creating a canon" at all but doing precisely what I described earlier. Eusebius was merely deferring to an already pre-existing canon and adhering to the pre-existing canon, both in his writing and when he sent 50 copies to Constantine. In other words, it is not Eusebius' canon at all he is sending but the canon as agreed upon by "church tradition". Now, had Eusebius included some books which were not agreed upon by "church tradition" as canonical, then you'd have a great argument he was "creating a canon". However, it appears he is doing nothing more than relying upon a pre-existing canon, a canon created by church tradition.

Roger Pearse

I think so.

Without special reference to this thread, I find sometimes that people with a theory do not read what Eusebius actually wrote -- they just jump on a word or two and assert based on that. It's a risky way to read any author.

We know nothing definite about what books these contained, as far as I know. No doubt if I am wrong someone will correct me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ruhan

James,

You keep referring to Eusebius simply using a pre-existing canon. I would be interested to know what evidence there is for an earlier canon consisting of all these books.

Tatian's canon was the first Orthodox canon and it was much smaller with the 4 Gospels, Paul's Epistles and the book of Acts. He excluded everything else.

Were there any other canons produced between Tatian and Eusebius that we have any evidence for today?

Regards,

Ruhan

S.C.Carlson

:huh: You're talking about Tatian, the author of the Diatessaron?

James Madison

Other than Eusebius' own remarks such as, "distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized. With his own words he is making it clear he is deferring to books the tradition of the Church has compiled as true and genuinea and recognized. His own words demonstrate he is relying upon a "canon" compiled by the traditions of the Church.

James Madison

Ruhan, I think Roger better addresses this remark than I did. We know nothing definite about what books these contained, as far as I know. No doubt if I am wrong someone will correct me.


If we know nothing definite about what books these copied manuscripts contained, then your assumption only books from the first category were sent seems to be just that, an assumption, albeit an unproven one.

Yes, a pre-existing canon you concurred existed.